The Death Of Morality? Ethical Humanism vs Religion

Socrates....?

but to be honest my first guess was my grandfather...i know he either memorized it or paraphrased....

clipped to Atheist, Crime & Punishment & Writers Groups.

We often hear that argument... The "This is just another reiteration of the good old Dooms Day is coming soon" argument. It is true that many of these themes repeat themselves throughout history, but from my perspective it is the scale of these issues that presents problems that are a bit different than any we have seen in the past. A nation of 300 million (to say nothing of a world of 7 billion) "entitled" rabid consumers of just about everything are testing limits... limits of one people to endure the excesses of others... limits of the capacity of the planet to support our excesses. In my view, good moral behavior involves more than treating other humans respectfully and fairly, it also involves doing the same for ALL creatures... not just the creatures that live here on planet earth now, but the creatures who are yet unborn (including our own progeny) and who are depending on us to leave them the same beautiful planet that our ancestors left to us.

...did ya google

why, all i had to do was click on the quote....i am gettin' smartur heer!

come to think of it, over the past couple of years, i am turning into one of those...damn kids are sinking our country...types now and then. but then another teen stands up for what is right and screws my way of thinking to the wall.

Children currently learn their moralitly from home, or half a home, peers and several thousands of hours of television and video games. It's amazing they do as well as they are.

I'm a kid junky and know thousands of them that I met at age 5 or younger and are now in college or married with children. Ninety-nine per cent of them are fantastic motivated and successful. I know that one of the problems we've had, as a society is expectations. I was born in 1944 when women were expected to grow up get married have children and be in service to their husbands. Children were to be seen not heard and men ruled society. As you can see times have changed and with that change keeping up with the variances and demands takes a while plus it is a push me pull me between the religious and the humanists. We'll get there eventually but we must remember to have fun on the way. We are no better or worse off than we've ever been. I think we are better off as we all have a voice and only have to use it.

Thank you, Perrie, I'm truly enjoying your thread.

So how do you think that you became an ethical person? Do you think that it was innate?

Was it innate??? NOT AT ALL!!! My childhood presented me with physical challenges that shaped my life. Some of my peers used my limitations as an excuse to treat me in ways that I didn't appreciate. Those experiences made me realize that I didn't want to be someone who treated others the way I had been treated. Thinking about the Golden Rule I had been taught, albeit without strong emphasis, I realized that it applied to my situation. I certainly cannot make any claim to have lived by the Golden Rule without fault, but throughout my life I have taken it more and more to heart. I think other creatures, especially my dog friends, have taught me the most about the Golden Rule and the merits of treating all things with the respect and kindness I hope to receive. So I guess my parents gave me the general primer on the Golden Rule, but my experiences in life and the other lives I have encountered have been my most compelling teachers.

Also when it gives man dominion over the earth, later on it also says that we should be good stewards of the earth, something very few people practice.

The problem I have with that, regardless of where those words came from, is that we humans pick and choose the ideas that suit us... We hear the "have dominion" words, but turn a deaf ear to the "be good stewards" words. Many people apply the "be good stewards" idea when it is convenient and requires no deprivation but give in to their desires when comfort and convenience would be compromised.

But now you are involved in human nature. The words are all there plain to see. But if people pick and choose what they want to read, that can't be helped.

CAN'T BE HELPED!!! Arg!!! Does that make it okay to pillage the planet???

Sorry about quoting myself over and over, but with that I can't resist doing it again...

Our highly developed cerebral cortex has been so effective at bringing us the comfort and security that was so scarce for the predecessors of our species that now we are overrunning the planet and stressing it beyond its capacity to support us.

I too was shaped by my environment as a child. It was a "please" and "thank you" era in "public" but behind the scenes it could get quite ugly. "Shut up and do as your told" "Do as I say not as I do" were common utterances by adults. There was also a lot of competition among siblings and parents, which still goes on and always has. Most adults of those days did not bend and also did not take their children under consideration when decisions were made. They did not tell us much but at age 18 we were "Out on our own" which would have been fine but since we've never had "our own" how does this work? When you look at the human condition from the history of others and your own personal experiences it is easier to have a strong moral fiber because you do not blame others for your short falls but you always learn from others.

Perrie children are the backbone of our society the wellspring of new ideas and inventions. Children are unsullied by their environments and when allowed have knowledge and curiosity beyond most adults. They get upset and over it in a flash they forgive and the laugh a lot. So, if I could choose my teachers in life I'd pick a child.

So many adults these days have lost touch with the children around them. Maybe that is why they don't know how to parent?

The social forces against males associating with other people's children
is part of the problem . There is only a little jail time and a lifetime
possibility of being wrongly labeled under the perversion laws .

Sorry P. ,

I didn't mean to imply that the comment was directed just at men .
I have to wonder if there are a lot fewer male teachers these days
than before the days of NBC style exposés of male predation .

Hi thelyamhound,

a failure on the part of both the religious and irreligious to devote proper time to moral philosophy as a necessary pursuit

Perrie said (and I agree),

This media induced coma, allows the influence of advertising to sell our youth on the idea of instant gratification and the "everybody has gotta have it" mentality.

Devoting time to "philosophy" of any kind is simply too boring and laborious for our "gotta have it NOW" society. Imagine taking a room full of middle schoolers and trying to convince them to stop texting and put down their iPhones long enough to engage in a discussion about "philosophy"... BOOOOORRRRRIIIIIING!!! Philosophy doesn't offer enough quick, fun, gratification to hold their attention.

Sorry... I am a bit of a Luddite... I bet you couldn't tell... eh???

What's interesting about that, though, Mal, is that gratification/consumption and morality/philosophy needn't be mutually exclusive. I work in the arts as an actor/clown/buffoon/acrobat and a playwright, and in fitness as a personal trainer. The latest communication technology is actually of some professional urgency to me, if only because I'm expected to be reachable wherever I am . . . and that is rarely at home. New fitness toys & trends also fall under the same umbrella of consumer-goods-that-might-be-luxuries-to-some-but-are-necessities-for-me. I can be circumspect about what, exactly, I need, or how much, largely as a result of, yes, my Buddhism, but also the existentialism, social contract theory, and even nihilism to which I've been exposed.

And I don't know if one need pause too long to find the time to explore these notions; after all, my introduction to philosophy came by way of musicians like Michael Stipe and Bono, directors like David Cronenberg and Hal Hartley, and so on. Heck, one could get a whole education just looking up the various references from The Simpsons.

In other words, its not the presence of advertising or the popularity of consumer goods so much as it is a failure to teach individuals to regard such cultural noise as text, to be deconstructed, decoded, decentered.

its not the presence of advertising or the popularity of consumer goods so much as it is a failure to teach individuals to regard such cultural noise as text, to be deconstructed, decoded, decentered.

I gotta agree with that! Also, I will say that there are great merits to our many human inventions... even iPhones... But there are almost always unintended consequences that come from our clever contraptions... Here is something else I have said on this topic...

We are clever enough to contrive how to transport men to the moon and bring them back alive and well; but not wise enough to see that technology is changing our planetary ecosystem so rapidly that the survivability of all life is threatened. We introduce one marvelous gadget and potion after another; and when we discover unanticipated and undesirable side effects from our inventions we devise yet another new thing as the remedy. Over the billions of years since life took hold on this planet there have been many changes to the ecosystem; some were small, others huge, and some were even catastrophic, but because there has usually been plenty of time between one change and the next life has always been able to adapt and prosper. Life has never had to deal with the deluge of change brought forth by mankind over the last two centuries. Our highly developed cerebral cortex has been so effective at bringing us the comfort and security that was so scarce for the predecessors of our species that now we are overrunning the planet and stressing it beyond its capacity to support us.

We want to believe we have the wits and the means to invent whatever may be necessary to fulfill our wildest dreams. But our dreams distract us and allow us to neglect our responsibilities to ourselves, to future generations, and to all the creatures of this planet. We must discipline ourselves or perish!

MalamuteMan..... I am glad you touched on the advances in technology. Never more than now has communication been so great. A few clicks on the mouse and we can talk to people any where in the world. Everyone has cell phones, even preteen adolescents. And the kids have access to internet before they are ten.

This communication has made "the loss of morality" grow faster and farther then any other time in history. In the past different areas were more secluded and not tainted by the rest if the world. Maybe that is how the Amish and their religion will survive longer than the other religions.

I can't condemn the new technology but I think it has a lot to do with all the advances in communication.

Nice article Perrie!

Just a thought here with the texting and the restaurant and children. Years ago taking your child to a restaurant was difficult as they were supposed to be on their best behavior from the minute they exited the womb. The problem with this is the adherence to very strict and ridged rules were in place and truly were not good for human growth. The next step was to take entertainment to the restaurant yet still wanting best behavior. As the children got older, say an 8-9 yr. old a book could be brought to read during boring times. However, as in church public and restaurants by the time a child turned ten years old they were expected to know their manners and stay focused upon and contribute to the conversation.

All of these skills are easily taught but you must give your child a reason to want to adhere to moral conduct not simply demand it and ignore it yourself. Parents who get lazy are tortured and so are the rest of us.

Perrie, I can't argue with your statement that's for sure.

Teaching children niceties is protection for them as well as pleasing the adult population. My own children were taught that at home they could express themselves however they like but if they were out of line a discussion would be the result. They knew that when they went out in public they but their manners on and kept them on. My youngest (at age 6) was ticked off at her brother (age 10) on a day that she had a special program at school. I was fixing her hair and he came to the bathroom door and begged her forgiveness and asked to attend the program with her. To my amusement and surprise she announced, "Your behavior has been abominable so I don't want you to go with me." He replied, "But you know the moment I step out of the door I'm a perfect gentleman" Then he apologized again for his offence against his sister and she allowed him to come with us to the school. It was raining hard so I let them out in front of the school so I could find a parking space. The walked hand in hand into the school.

As a parent I kept up the dialogue with my children commenting and observing and asking questions enticing their opinions. We did not watch a lot of television and never without my supervision and rarely played video games. I'd drag them to the kitchen to help with dinner and out in the yard to help garden. They did not seem to mind and we always had a great time. We'd walk all over the city and talk about the sights. As adults they are at ease with their lives and well equipped to face nearly every situation that comes along. I believe this is one aspect that is missing now. Too many children grow up without the skills to know how to behave in any given situation and instead let it all hang out even when it is highly inappropriate. Parents need to protect their children from this and make sure they know how to feel out social atmospheres before jumping in and making fools of them and annoying others.

I want to make sure that I am understanding you right.

I get that a lot. It remains surprising to me, if only because I was the "emotional" one amongst my gaggle of geeks growing up--not exactly less intelligent than my compatriots, but angrier, more volatile, and more physical. Sort of like Toshiro Mifune in The Seven Samurai (please tell me I'm not the only one who gets that reference).

Simply put, a total lack of introspection, combined with a lack of guidance has lead to a lack of morality.

I don't see how that's "simpler" than what I said, but yeah. :)

To put it another way, we teach kids how to read, write, operate a car and obey traffic laws (eventually), use utensils, etc.; some basic training in civility should come standard with that. In addition, I'd also suggest that the capacity to engage in--or at least observe knowledgeably--art and philosophy is key, because I believe those represent our truest, perhaps our only, distinctions as a species (since, as I don't believe in [G/g]od[s] or a Platonic notion of a soul, I see nothing else distinguishing us from flatworms with opposable thumbs).

On the other hand, there are many times that I see people out at a restaurant, and all the kids are texting, and not interacting with the rest of the table. I blame the parents/ adults for not setting those guidelines, but the end result will be children who grow into adults with a lack of interpersonal skills.

Well, yeah. On that same basis, I was limited as a child as to when I could read at social gatherings. Mealtimes, the book went away; interaction with adults came standard. Actually, I really liked interacting with adults as a kid; if nothing else, I liked to show off how much I had read over the course of the day, the weird trivia I knew about literature and mythology and history. One could argue, I suppose, that this interaction did me as much harm as good, but for the most part, in ensured that I was a polite enough child (minus some difficult years here and there).

Well, here I have to repeat what I said to Jack. Most people are intellectually lazy. So to deconstruct, decode and decenter, is almost as likely as giving one's self a root canal.

Well, yeah; that's the problem. And to me, some religion (specifically, neo-Platonic theism, particularly anthropomorphic monotheism) actually exacerbates the problem. So long as we believe that an individuated and transcendent soul separates us from the animals, we give inadequate focus to what we can actually demonstrate DOES separate us (ostensibly) from most species: the capacity to recognize and debate various threads of moral and intellectual understanding.

Before I start...where did you get your name from? I have been dying to ask you that for some time, but I didn't want to seem to invasive.

My real name is Lyam (with a long "i" sound, as opposed to "Liam" with the long "e" sound; my mother liked "Liam," but was afraid it might be shortened by others to "Lee," which is her name). The family is mostly Irish, with a little Scottish and Welsh stirred in (with a pinch of German and just a dash of Susquehanna, natch). As it happens, per the Oxford English Dictionary, the name was originally short for lyam-hound, an old Welsh term for a bloodhound. So "the lyam-hound" simply became "thelyamhound."

I find that hard to believe! You are one of the most well spoken people I know on the vine, and your command of the English language is amazing.

Nah, I'm just a show-off. :) Plus I work it harder for cute redheads (I'd say don't tell my wife, but alas, she knows my nature; fortunately, I'm all talk).

But..no..I don't get your reference. But I will google it later!

The Seven Samurai was one of Kurosawa's many "tributes" to American Westerns which mythologizes feudal Japan with the same quasi-heroic eye that John Ford turned on the untamed West. Mifune (one of Kurosawa's frequent leading men, and, with Jacques Tati, one of my two favorite personae in all of world cinema) played a supporting role in this one, one of the seven--the youngest, angriest, and least trained, but also the one who had greater insight into the plight of the peasants the samurai were there to protect.

I often thought of myself (correctly or not) as "the bodyguard" (the Yojimbo, per the title of another favorite Kurosawa/Mifune collaboration) in my little band of the brainy.

It seems that these things are no longer taught at many schools. It seems that as a society, we no longer value these subjects. So our teens reasoning skills are less than par . . .

But now a recent study shows that the average American family eats together less than 1 time a week...how sad.

It's all rather sad, I agree. So the question for me becomes, when did the Socratic element within the family/clan/community disappear? Was it specifically attached to religion (to be affected by decreased religiosity), or was it attached to valuation of intellect within the family and community (to be damaged by the virulent anti-intellectualism that plagues our culture)?

That is a very interesting statement, especially the comment about "as we believe that an individuated and transcendent soul separates us from the animals", because there are many who would debate that animal indeed do have souls.

That's not the standard theistic/Christian view, but I don't disagree that if there were such a thing as a "soul," animals would likely possess it; I'm just convinced that something that transcends the body would also transcend individual boundaries (we could get into a long discourse on Bruno's "eternal [in]corporeal," but I'll spare you that).

What they don't seem to have is the capacity to debate moral and intellectual understanding.

I'm not convinced of that. Not only do animals appear to function according to some sort of moral agency, but they even appear to have mechanisms for protecting the weak from the strong (despite assertions to the contrary below).

We may never know, as we don't speak horse/wolf/fire-ant/etc.

I think a couple of things lead to that change. First, I think that when families need two incomes, the mom stopped cooking and dinner was had on the fly. For families that didn't need two incomes, well, they changed over time, as kids had their agendas and so did they and they had the income to do so. I think over all, it is societal.

Good point(s)!

I think you misunderstood me. If there is a soul ( I am not sure), then I think that animals do possess them. As for the rest of your statement, I'm really not sure.

I don't think I misunderstood; I was just elucidating my own thoughts on the matter. I agree that, if there is such a thing as the "soul," that animals do possess them.

There are many schools of religious that that differentiate between the soul and the spirit (pneuma) . . . but again, I'm not sure I want to open that can of worms (just yet).

Oh, I agree that animals do have a sense of morality . . . The only thing I am not sure of is if they can have a discussion about morals.

I get that. I just tend to think that if they have a sense of morality, there must be some mechanism for their understanding of it; that is to say, there might well be "discussion" that we have no way of measuring. Of course, I'm also used to working within martial arts (particularly capoeira) that refer to what happens between players/fighters in a match as "discourse." I even think of sex as being essentially conversational. All of which is to say that there are modes of "discussion" that don't relate directly to language.

I think, however, that our use of language creates a wider divergence in how morals are practiced, enforced, or changed than one usually sees within a species, so I agree (to an extent) that the sheer complexity of our moral structures is unique, which might well be a reflection of language, and thus of the sophistication of our moral discussions.

Yes, I will have to read to stay abreast of all of this, you know me, I'm not that knowledgeable, although I have my opinions, and so far .........I'm a lovin it. Good job woman:) Hek

Ah heck, you know I will (got too much going on right now, and so will you......soon enough) hehehehehek

Perrie---simply stated, imho, a little old fashioned fear of God is a good thing.

Perhaps not. As a Buddhist (who neither acknowledges nor worships any deity), I can't quite see the utility in fearing something that I don't believe exists, thus building my moral structures on a foundation that might well be fictional.

To the extent that fear of the Creator is diluted or in many cases extinguished.....well the "anything goes" sense of morality takes precedent to Him and His Commandments.

Why? Buddhists haven't believed in [G/g]od(s) for centuries, at least not as a canonical matter of doctrine; Taoists were arguably the original pantheists (though there might be some Greeks here and there who would argue otherwise). Are we to assume that adherents of these religious systems aren't moral? Or could we conversely assume that morality could be derived from sources other than theos?

And we can see the consequences of that all around us.

Yes and no. Actual crime rates have been declining, for the most part. On the other hand, generalized notions of civility seem to be somewhat lacking. But how would we associate, say, saying "please" and "thank you" or offering to help clear the table when you eat dinner as a guest in someone else's house with [G/g]od(s)?

It is critical that a sense of morality be developed during one's formative years---taught by parents, other family members, teachers, religious figures and any other appropriate role models.

Well, sure. I don't imagine you'll encounter many so irreligious that they'd disagree with that. But teachers, for instance, are all but obligated to address a broader notion of morality than children or religious figures. Respecting property and being considerate of others constitute civic moralities, which are certainly the province of public educational institutions; more strictly religious niceties, like keeping the sabbath, duties to deity (as opposed to other individuals or to self), or (to the degree that it's even relevant, and depending on the age of the children) sexual morality really shouldn't be that homogenously enforced across a whole culture.

Without that sense of morality there is a greater tendency toward sin.

Well, there's a lesser tendency toward morality, in any case; there's no such thing as sin without [G/g]od(s), and no such thing as [G/g]od(s) without some epistemic foundation for belief therein.

The breakdown of the traditional family that has been occuring now for generations also does not help in establishing a moral society imho.

I don't disagree. But I imagine we have different notions as to what aspects of the traditional family are responsible for allowing it to function. That is to say, I certainly don't see gay marriage or adoption as threats to what actually works in the traditional family on the same level that single parenthood or lack of discipline might be.

Hi Lisa,

a little old fashioned fear of God is a good thing

I have no fear of God... or for that matter any knowledge that is meaningful to me of any kind of God... and yet I think of myself as a person with very strong moral ethics. I abhor the "anything goes" sense of morality, but not because I fear "Him." Many of "His" Commandments seem like sensible ideas to me, but the first 4 of the famous 10 Commandments seem kind of self centered to me... Not exactly a good "role model" setting a good example for others to follow.

BTW- Even though I don't share most of your "conservative" views, I admire your strong conviction!

Perrie---simply stated, imho, a little old fashioned fear of God is a good thing.

That depends entirely on how you apply (utilize? exploit?) that fear of God.

Fear of God has been used to teach kids not to lie, but it's also been used to justify murder.

To the extent that fear of the Creator is diluted or in many cases extinguished.....well the "anything goes" sense of morality takes precedent to Him and His Commandments. And we can see the consequences of that all around us.

The world cannot be reduced to simply "either you're a Bible follower or anything goes and you're fine with chainsawing babies."

A reduction in religious fervor or religious belief does not necessarily cause a breakdown in morality. You can look to countries with sharia law as an example of exactly the opposite (according to our common view of morality). Further, the Ten Commandments haven't been rigorously followed for centuries, and Eastern cultures had never even heard of them until recently (in historical terms). You'd be quite hard-pressed to argue that the Eastern Hemisphere was a cesspool of amoral skullduggery before the 1800s, though.

It is critical that a sense of morality be developed during one's formative years---taught by parents, other family members, teachers, religious figures and any other appropriate role models.

Sure, though I'd add the caveat that "appropriate role models" is quite a tricky animal.

Without that sense of morality there is a greater tendency toward sin. Sins that hurt not just the sinner but many others in the world around them.

Sin only applies within a religious framework. Further, "hurt" can encompass quite a number of things--everything from physical harm to the asshat proselytizers' line of "it just hurts me/God so to see you being so apart from God."

The breakdown of the traditional family that has been occuring now for generations also does not help in establishing a moral society imho.

I agree with that vague, general statement, but it'd be more useful to see what you specifically consider to be a "traditional family," and what factors you specifically think are breaking down this model.

I gotta tell ya Jack... the precision of your thinking is just bloody impressive.

Heh, thanks.

It annoys more than a few people, though. I've been called "nitpicky" more than a few times. :-P

Now correct me if I am wrong Jack, but in most eastern cultures, honor is the basis of morality. To bring dishonor to yourself is to bring it on the family. That would keep most people in check. It is not just societal pressure but family, and brother, family pressure is a killer.

I don't know about "most Eastern cultures," but that was certainly true after Confucianism swept across China (and if you go by World HIstory According to China, all Eastern culture was ripped off of China, so... :-P).

Ahh.. a murky area! I don't think I personally don't need to define a family as traditional, meaning mom and dad, but one in which children are raised by elders who make sure that they have love, guidance, caring, dialog, an interest in education and all of the fundamental needs. But, as a teacher, I often have latch key kids, with absentee parents, with none of the above given to them.

Yeah, there was a set of infographics made about cultural differences between Germany (West) and China (East) made by a Chinese lady who's lived in Germany since her teens. Of particular note is the "daily life of the old" comparison (third from the bottom).

Jack,

Further, the Ten Commandments haven't been rigorously followed for centuries, and Eastern cultures had never even heard of them until recently (in historical terms).

Did the Eastern Cultures have anything in "writing"?

Any codifications, canons, etc...?

Well, Confucius wrote quite a bit of literature on the matter of social morality, which was later codified essentially into Chinese social law, and Buddhist texts talk about morality quite a bit, as well. Beyond that, I can't say for sure, though I strongly suspect that Hindu religious texts also mentioned moral guidelines.

Are we to assume that adherents of these religious systems aren't moral?

Thelymanhound: Absolutely not....any religious foundation including buddhism helps shape a person's moral foundation. I'm a Roman Catholic...my sister raised Catholic now embraces more the eastern philosophies. I was thrilled to attend with her a talk by the Dalai Lama coupla years ago.....a thrill that rated right up there with the day I was in the audience in St. Peter's Squre when the Pope gave his Palm Sunday mass. I don't judge any religion to be better than anyone else's....but I personally take comfort in believing there exists a power greater than myself. He can be wrath filled and punishing as we see Him in the First Testament. He can be compassionate and forgiving as we see Him in the New Testament. As a person of faith, I believe the ultimate judge of anyone's life --the net summation of their good works and their sins will be God.

Jack--any religion can be distorted and used for evil purposes....this is because those of us here on earth are mere mortals....human beings that are capable of sin. Yes, sin is defined in religious contexts---as a Catholic we have a broadbased definition of sins as follows:

The Seven Deadly Sins, also known as the Capital Vices or Cardinal Sins, is a classification of the most objectionable vices that has been used since early Christian times to educate and instruct followers concerning (immoral) fallen humanity's tendency to sin. The final version of the list consists of wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. The Catholic Church divided sin into two principal categories: "venial sins", which are relatively minor and could be forgiven through any sacramentals or sacraments of the church, and the more severe "capital" or mortal sins. Mortal sins are believed to destroy the life of grace and create the threat of eternal damnation unless either absolved through the sacrament of Penance or forgiven through perfect contrition on the part of the penitent.

As a God fearing Christian--for me personally, fear of God translates directly to fear of Hell.....a state of damnation vs. eternal grace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins

Many people apply the "be good stewards" idea when it is convenient and requires no deprivation but give in to their desires when comfort and convenience would be compromised.

Mal---that's a sin---good example. ANd:

BTW- Even though I don't share most of your "conservative" views, I admire your strong conviction!

Thanks! And if I recall correctly it was you and I going round on some discussion of morality that in part inspired Perries' article...no?

Hi Lisa,

if I recall correctly it was you and I going round on some discussion of morality that in part inspired Perries' article...no?

Yes it was... see #1.3

and I have a question about this...

any religious foundation including buddhism helps shape a person's moral foundation

What about my decidedly non-religious (not anti-religious) foundation? I would be interested to here what you have to say about what I said in #3 and even more interested in your reaction to #3.2

Mal---It's hard for me to comment on how those who do not share my faith such as yourself come to find their own sense of morality. I in no way mean to imply there is only one road to get there and I mentioned various other factors that help shape a young person's development of a moral code. I did read what you said and all of it makes sense....your's was defined by your parents, who helped instill in you the Golden Rule, and your life experiences as a young person and with your interaction with your pets as an adult. I think of all those things are factors that shape a person's sense of morality. I never meant to imply that morality comes from religion alone. I don't think there is any right way to get there to a sense of morality but I do believe religion can help. My own faith was instilled in me first by mother....who as a staunch to this day Catholic took me to church WITHOUT fail every Sunday ("of course we can make time in our busy schedules to give God 45 minutes a week," she would say as she drove us and we grumbled en route to mass each week). She made sure I enjoyed every sacrament from baptism, communion, confirmation (and Sunday school every week), marriage before God in the Catholic Church, penance, etc. She taught me I think when I was about three years old how to pray sitting next to me as I said my "Hail Mary" my "Our Father", and my "Now I lay me down to sleep" when I had no idea what the words of the first two prayers even meant....didn't matter....they are now an inherent part of me. I feel peace when I say them. Thanks mom for pushing me when I didn't want to as a young person to embrace God. My faith is your gift to me. My father too raised Catholic has become now as he is older a much more spiritual person reading parts of the bible daily etc.

Thanks for your reply Lisa! My sister-in-law is a very dear friend, one of the smartest people I know, and a Catholic Nun. Even though I don't understand her "faithful" beliefs, I respect her for her dedication to them. I have a similar respect for you.

PS- Please see #10.16

Perrie--6.19---I thank you for the dedication.....I enjoyed your article and the discussion it spurred. Takes some courage to feature such a tough topic very often of heated debate on your column.

Thelymanhound: Absolutely not....any religious foundation including buddhism helps shape a person's moral foundation.

Then if one can maintain a moral foundation within a religion that acknowledges no deity and holds morality, beauty, and all abstractions to be anthropogenic constructs, why could one not function as well without a defined religion (I say "defined" because I actually think that atheists do tend to adhere to de facto religious constructs like objectivism, secular humanism, existentialistm, etc.; that's probably fodder for a whole 'nother conversation)?

I was raised with an overly zealous Christian mother and a non-religious father. My father had a stronger sense of morality because it was inherent in him and he had no need to be coerced into being a good person. On the other hand my mother used religion to punish and to give way to God the responsibilities that were hers. The hardest part is she punished me with threats from God and I knew she was lying. God did not strike me dead for her sins and I was not punished unfairly as I knew the only person responsible for me is I. I believe that there are times when religion gives people license to take liberties in a negative light.

I believe we are born with the components of morality. If a child only receives negative input they will try to thrive on this, as attention is what they need. So basically we start out as wee pure hearts and are shaped from that point.

why could one not function as well without a defined religion

thelyamhound---I never said they couldn't.....but I do believe that religion when not practiced by zealots that can turn religion into a force for evil rather than a force for good can help a person to build their own internal moral compass ---which has been my own personal experience. I can't speak to anyone else's experience with their road to morality but my own. And:

I say "defined" because I actually think that atheists do tend to adhere to de facto religious constructs like objectivism, secular humanism, existentialistm, etc.; that's probably fodder for a whole 'nother conversation)?

I can't speak for Perrie--but I think that is exactly the conversation she was looking for with this piece....I can't speak for atheists or secular humanists....but I know Mal has given us some insights into how he developed without God or religion his own moral compass. I've also pointed out on this thread that those who are atheists but who embrace the Golden Rule are embracing a moral construct propagated by religion.

but it'd be more useful to see what you specifically consider to be a "traditional family," and what factors you specifically think are breaking down this model.

Jack 6.4---as Father's Day is this weekend here is some "traditional family" food for thought:

Marriage matters. But mentioning the bond between marriage and lower poverty violates the protocols of political correctness. Thus, the main cause of child poverty remains hidden from public view. Since the decline of marriage is the principal cause of child poverty and welfare dependence in the U.S. …it would seem reasonable for government to take steps to strengthen marriage

Research shows that a child raised in a home where Dad is married to Mom is much less likely to live in poverty, get arrested as a juvenile, be suspended or expelled from school, be treated for emotional or behavioral problems, or drop out before completing high school. Taxpayers foot the bill for more than $300 billion a year in means-tested government spending on low-income single moms – and, in relatively rare cases, single dads.

To reinvigorate marriage in lower-income neighborhoods, Rector suggests, government could start by providing facts on the role of healthy marriages in reducing poverty and improving the well-being of children. Why not teach skills for selecting a wife or husband? Why not explain the importance of developing a stable marital relationship before bringing children into the world?

Nothing could be further from government practice. In social service agencies, welfare offices, schools and popular culture across America, what Rector calls "a deafening silence" reigns on the topic of marriage. The welfare system actively penalizes low-income couples who do get married. He adds:

For most on the Left, marriage is, at best, an antiquated institution, a red-state superstition. From this viewpoint, the real task is to expand government subsidies as a post-marriage society is built.

Rather than adopt policies to reverse the 50-year spike in births outside marriage, though, President Obama in his 2011 budget "would eliminate the one program dedicated to encouraging healthy marriage," notes Jennifer A. Marshall, Heritage's director of domestic policy studies

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/18/morning-bell-fathers-who-are-husbands-spare-children-from-poverty/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Happy Father's Day to all you dads out there.

Did the Eastern Cultures have anything in "writing"?

The Bhagavad Gita, the I Ching, the Tao Te Ching, the Lotus Sutra, Great Concentration and Insight, the Gosho . . . and those are just the ones I'm familiar with. There are hundreds more.

Of course, with some exceptions (most notably the Bhagavad Gita), these texts concern themselves more with the "true nature of phenomena" and the ways in which that true nature might influence our contemplating our duties to other beings and/or the broader spectrum of "Being." In other words, there are fewer "rules" to define moral behavior--outside of orthodox Hiduism or Confucianism (the latter being entirely a set of standards for comportment)--and more notions as to how one might contemplate morality and derive rules from said contemplation.

lisaed, I had literally no interest in indulging canned partisan sniping and political smears when I asked for you to clarify your definition of "traditional family," or the specific factors which you consider to be breaking down this "traditional family." This utter disinterest has not yet faded at present.

thelyamhound---I never said they couldn't.....but I do believe that religion when not practiced by zealots that can turn religion into a force for evil rather than a force for good can help a person to build their own internal moral compass ---which has been my own personal experience.

That's quite a few caveats (one of them circular) for the particular mode of religion described by your earlier statement of "a little old fashioned fear of God."

I've also pointed out on this thread that those who are atheists but who embrace the Golden Rule are embracing a moral construct propagated by religion.

But not solely propagated by religion. The fact that many religions also utilize the Golden Rule (first formally recorded in ancient secular Greek philosophy) says nothing about its inherent religiosity.

This utter disinterest has not yet faded at present.

Jack--your rudeness never ceases to amaze me. I gave you a sincere answer and you through it in my face? I should have known better than to try to converse with you. If you've facts to counter the ones I presented about the breakdown of the family structure in America and it's implications for society from another source better to your liking by all means link away and drop the insults. Thanks.

Perrie from my experience of over 20 years in the public school system I think families is structured a bit differently now. I found that the majority of divorced couples shared custody and stepped up to their responsibilities. More and more couples divorced yet remained friendly and cooperative with each other. I knew of a few feuding couples and their pettiness toward one another took its toll on the children. I believe that most value their children and guide them to the best of their abilities. One thing I noticed in working in a neighborhood of struggling families the children stepped up to help their parents even by working part time jobs after school escorting their younger siblings back and forth from school and doing the major portion of daycare meal provision and other tasks. This is not unlike the 50's families.

When you think back about stigma the overall picture will unfold. There was a time up until the late 60's when a woman could not go into a bar or tavern alone without being labeled "loose" or worse. A divorced mother lived in shame and children of divorced couples were looked upon as less than other children. A black man or woman were restricted in their activities and rarely allowed to move into a white neighborhood. Mixed race marriages were an abomination and anyone doing anything out of wedlock was subject to judgement and ridicule. We've had to change our mindset on many points of life and it is difficult for it to all fall in place at once.

Perrie---you should delete Jack's 6.28. I'm reporting it and signing off. There are strict rules from Tyler regarding the Jones Girl and her stalking my page. And his reference to her and what I said to her is completely OFF TOPIC and not provided in the correct context....he does in fact misrepresent it. And for the sake of your thread I'm not going to clarify.

I wasn't aware there was official mediation regarding lisaed's and TJG's relationship, but fair enough. I'd rather not waste Tyler's time simply because lisaed likes calling me a liar.

Here's the comment again without the contentious part:

I gave you a sincere answer and you through it in my face?

Not at all. You gave me a canned copy-paste without a single word of your own devising--an answer which included, among other things:

For most on the Left, marriage is, at best, an antiquated institution, a red-state superstition. From this viewpoint, the real task is to expand government subsidies as a post-marriage society is built.

I doubt you'd disagree that gay marriage is something that's rather heavily supported by what you'd consider "liberals." If they really considered marriage to merely be "an antiquated institution, a red-state superstition," then why bother pushing for broadening marriage, instead of trying to shut down the institution completely?

Or, I could simply pull up marriage statistics, which show that (among US adults) 78% of all adults, 74% of non-Christians, and 65% of atheists/agnostics have been married. Apparently, 37% of sociopolitical liberals have been divorced (which requires being married in the first place), compared with 28% of sociopolitical conservatives. It seems the statistics rather disagree with the overgeneralized declaration you deigned to quote.

Heritage.org is a pretty website, but its content seems to come up short with regards to truthiness. Thus, my criticism of your copy-paste as "canned partisan sniping and political smears." :-)

Perrie, regarding divorced couples I did miss mentioning that in this day and age we do not have to set up each other as enemies to have an excuse to separate when our relationship is finished. I believe for a long time that unless there were "reasons" and those reasons were usually caustic and toxic you were supposed to stick out a marriage that was finished. I am very content that this ugliness is phasing out and a divorced couple can still be friends and raise their children with mutual joy. That past push me pull me and dirty laundry exposure to escape was ludicrous at best.

yep.

Great article, Perrie. It covers quite a bit of ground, so I'll simply see what bite-sized conversations come up and respond to them. As such...

Murder is always wrong.

That depends on how your define murder, doesn't it? It reminds me of the classic mistransliteration of "Thou shalt not murder" into "Thou shalt not kill."

Murder, as a premeditated act of killing a person who is not directly and presently threatening you and your loved ones' lives, is generally bad, but as a counterpoint, I'll pose the classic question of "What would you do if you had a chance to assassinate Hitler during WWII?"

Would assassinating Hitler (or Pol Pot, etc.) constitute a murder, and thusly be necessarily immoral? I think there's a bit of grey area when it comes to moral decisions there, because morality is, in the end, wholly subjective.

That depends on how you define murder, doesn't it?

Can give us a similar analysis of the Buddhist precept "Do no harm."

Excellent point Perrie!!!

Murder is wrong, having a baby out of wedlock... gray area right? Gay marriage... to me, it is quite ethical and moral, and to others, quite the opposite!

Those ideas were mulling around in my head when I was reading your article and the comments under it. :)

E

You could counter it though by saying, killing is always wrong, even when it's evil, so we will sit evil in a room for the rest of their lives and make them watch films of the evil that they did?

Or make them watch films that we've found out really bother them. If 90's Discovery Channel, Lie To Me, and Criminal Minds are anything to go by, a lot of real sociopaths aren't particularly bothered by replays of their depravities.

As for death being humane, I think there's an argument to be made there. I don't know where even I, personally, would put execution, though, on the appropriate-severity-of-crime scale.

Surprisingly, Hitler didn't make most evil, because to do that, you must be actually involved and gaining pleasure from killing and fooling society at the same time.

Yeah, Hitler delegated his depravities. Do you remember where he did fall on the Evil Scale?

Quite a tough question, right? Here let me complicate it a bit. Tim McVeigh was quite glad to die for his beliefs. So was death actually a punishment?

Don't you hate it when (wannabe) martyrs f--- up your moral calculus? :-P

a) Are all societies equally moral, b) or are some less and others more?

Equally moral? In who's eyes, Yours or Mine? Who decide this? Or are we discussing something/someone bigger? Like God or a creator, etc.?

a)From the view point of the creator, the answer would be yes. You are all equally moral, it's not her fault, that y'all developed in completely different directions over the millennium. b) This concept of "more or less moral" is just one imposing morality on another, IMO.

Yes, within a singular society it's easier to set a Moral tone, but it is also easier to use said moral tone to control freedom. For example, fundamentalist [insert religion here]. The fundamentalist is usually the literal interpretation of text, principles or laws. Literal interpretations allow no wriggle room for things like change. The culture may remained true to it's morality, but it is stunted to grown as a people.

I think that there are some standards that are pretty universal, like murder, rape, theft...you get the idea. It's when we get into the nature of each faiths ( or non-faiths) rules that we start to run into problems.

This one has the potential to get out of control crazy. For example, there are many rationalisations for murder. Stopping genocide being the most common. But in the context of "murder" we planned to kick some German butt. Murder the murderers. It that immoral act any less moral than, killing someone just because they are a jew? Way to complicated for my pay grade.

It's when we get into the nature of each faiths ( or non-faiths) rules that we start to run into problems.

Actually, that's when we have understanding.

Agreeing on the definition of moral/immoral is futile. This is why I believe morality is a choice. Situations, societies, hell even religions change. One must be ready to think it through in that context. The murder and rape arguments are such. For example, homosexuality used to be morally wrong too. Vis a vis sodomy laws. Grouped into that bucket of immoral or "unnatural" acts called sodomy. Is it still immoral? IMO no more or less than it was. It's the thought process which has changed. Not the moral aspect of any act.

.. changed the way we think.

Exactly.

Let me try and confuse it better, by using a relious example. Christ knew of morality from his exposure to the torah. The Torah was an established moral document developed over generations.

When Christ started to step in and say things like, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone", the thinking changed, not the religion or the morality, the thinking changed. There is no moral high ground, unless you are without sin. He made them use their brains. Even though as the story goes he was God, he was THE moral authority. He changed the way they thought.

The way we think even today. It is a never ending process, not a list of rules to be followed.

Yes, but I'm hung up on the term "new standard". It implies to me something fixed. Something that will become outdated. Something that will remove critical thinking in the future.

It's the thinking that's important to me, not the list of do's and don'ts.

evolution of our morality...The why of what is moral?...I am trying to get to the root of them.

Yes, yes and good luck hitting a moving target.

Here is another analogy. Take a picture. The picture is life at that moment. Life keeps rolling on by. Each new picture tells a new story of life. You may even get a picture of morality in the collection. Even all the pictures together is not all of life or all of morality. Thinking fills in the gaps.

Wonderful analogy.

TY Ms. Hek. I gotta try and make this simple enough for even me to understand. Lord knows it took me long enough, to get to this point.

Jalmeno,

although we are not all "of faith", we might be nurtured into it, whether we would like to admit it or not.

I think "faith" and "morality" are two different things. Morality is a bit difficult to define, but in very simple terms, I would describe it as "doing the right thing"... I know, "the right thing" is very subjective. Faith on the other hand is, for me, fairly easy to define. It is holding a belief, without any (or possibly very little) tangible evidence or proof supporting that belief. Personally, I try to avoid having faith-based beliefs. If there are questions I cannot answer, like "What created the Universe?" or "What will happen when I die?", I accept the fact that I may never have answers for those questions. I am much more comfortable with that conclusion than I am knowing I am holding a belief that has no tangible foundation.

But does not all morality's precepts originate from "faith".

How does one subscribe to an "absolute" standard of right and wrong without a "good book" of some flavor?

How does one subscribe to an "absolute" standard of right and wrong, and at the same time refuse to subscribe to anything that would provide him with that original guideline?

Do you need a religious tome to tell you that beheading a puppy for fun is wrong? What about dropkicking a baby?

If so, I'm curious as to how one derives such moral judgments from one's religious text of choice. If not, why do you think morality in general is any different?

But does not all morality's precepts originate from "faith".

Not at all. Morality derives directly from social interaction. Chimps exhibit it, as do wolves. We may wish to relegate their behaviors to "instinct," but they enforce behavioral guidelines among their own species that operate in precisely the same manner as human morals.

Do you need a religious tome to tell you that beheading a puppy for fun is wrong? What about dropkicking a baby?

Not all morality is that simple. The original biblical texts give a rich basis for our current laws. Weights and measures, property law, accidental death, damage compensation, formation of courts of law, inheritance, and on and on...

It's not all about hot button issues, like beheading and maiming. It's about the mundane, everyday life experiences that we take for granted.

Thats true Jack, Chimps and wolves do exhibit a form of a behavioral code... through strength. Strongest chimp gets what he wants, 1st crack at food & all the females as do the strongest wolf from the pack.

Does this mean "strength" is what determines or should determin "moral behavior" in humans and what's right and wrong?

No. I don't think so.

Not all morality is that simple. The original biblical texts give a rich basis for our current laws. Weights and measures, property law, accidental death, damage compensation, formation of courts of law, inheritance, and on and on...

Those Biblical texts were hardly original in the provision of legal edicts for inheritance, accidental death, property rights, weights & measures, etc. I don't see how you can point to those things and: 1. declare them part of "morality" in a general sense, and 2. claim that religion somehow invented/is necessary for such things.

That's not even considering the fact that most Christians don't follow Biblical declarations of that sort down to the letter.

It's not all about hot button issues, like beheading and maiming.

Actually, I picked beheading puppies and maiming babies precisely because those aren't typically morally contentious.

Thats true Jack, Chimps and wolves do exhibit a form of a behavioral code... through strength. Strongest chimp gets what he wants, 1st crack at food & all the females as do the strongest wolf from the pack.

It's not that simple. Chimps also punish their own clan members for stealing and protect the elderly, for example.

Does this mean "strength" is what determines or should determin "moral behavior" in humans and what's right and wrong?

No. I don't think so.

Regardless of whether or not it should determine human moral behavior, the fact of the matter is that it does determine human moral behavior. As the saying goes: history is written by the victors. Well, so are laws.

True Jack. History and laws are written by victors. So does that mean the victors actions, and the laws are morally right...just because they are written by the victors?

I think that's the discussion. The concept of morality, right or wrong inside or outside the context of "faith" aka religion.

As for me... no. Might don't make right. Strength aka Victor doesn't dictate what's right or wrong.

So does that mean the victors actions, and the laws are morally right...just because they are written by the victors?

What is "right" to you is nothing more than what you personally decide to be "right."

You're operating under this assumption that you (or I) can talk about "morally right" as if there's an absolute, objective moral judgment for all scenarios. There isn't.

As for me... no. Might don't make right. Strength aka Victor doesn't dictate what's right or wrong.

That may be what you wish your ideal to be, but might making right has been proven time and again throughout human history.

And that is the point. There is no "right" or "wrong". There can be no absolute moral values without God. It all becomes relative.

Science explains the natural environment we live in. Religion tries to explain the spiritual environment we live in. Science deals with natural laws. Religion deals with moral, spiritual laws.

My personal opinion, religion and science are both equally important to human condition and well being, as an individual and community. Provided the religion is good; Good defined as positive towards personal growth, positive towards relationship with others (instilling tolerance, understanding, love, peace, forgiveness, patience etc), positive towards relationship with God which all result in personal happiness and harmonious thriving social community.

One doesn't have to believe in a specific God to believe in certain absolute spiritual laws.

I believe certain moral values must always remain absolute. Can't be changed. Shouldn't be changed. Such values? For starters, all man & woman are created in God's Image therefore, unique and valuable, deserving right to life, liberty and individual pursuit of happiness.

To me that is absolute moral value, unchangable, undeniable, secured by God Almighty Himself, not by man, that no-one can or should take away.

Religion deals with moral, spiritual laws.

Morality is independent of religion.

For starters, all man & woman are created in God's Image therefore, unique and valuable, deserving right to life, liberty and individual pursuit of happiness.

Well, the likeness of our "image" is not a moral, but a fable. But I can agree on the life, liberty, and happimess part.

To me that is absolute moral value, unchangable, undeniable, secured by God Almighty Himself, not by man, that no-one can or should take away.

You are free to believe that. But our morals do not come from god, nor should they, as god has been quite immoral himself, especially in the OT.

There is something going on in our culture that has changed and has left us with no moral compass.

It's due to a lack of personal responsibility, accountability, and discipline.

And that is the point. There is no "right" or "wrong". There can be no absolute moral values without God. It all becomes relative.

And my point is that the history of religion demonstrates that religion has never been a guarantee for any sort of "absolute" moral values. Religion itself has changed its goalposts whenever such changes have suited social circumstances (unless you wish to claim that the Crusaders et al. were following "Thou shalt not murder" and "turn the other cheek" to the letter).

One doesn't have to believe in a specific God to believe in certain absolute spiritual laws.

Of course not. However that belief in absolute spiritual laws is, itself, subjective.

I believe certain moral values must always remain absolute. Can't be changed. Shouldn't be changed. Such values? For starters, all man & woman are created in God's Image therefore, unique and valuable, deserving right to life, liberty and individual pursuit of happiness.

Ah, now we're getting into the nitty-gritty. :-)

If all men & women absolutely deserve the right to "liberty", then is prison immoral?

To me that is absolute moral value, unchangable, undeniable, secured by God Almighty Himself, not by man, that no-one can or should take away.

That's fine. However, once again, this belief itself (the belief that so-and-so is absolute) is subjective. ;-)

OK, before this degrades into the typical religion v non religion, if you read the article, the point was, after much research, the problem doesn't seem to lie with whether a person is religious or not. Is an atheist or not. There is something going on in our culture that has changed and has left us with no moral compass. That is the point here. So please let's try to remain focused.

I agree. I'm simply trying to point out that religion does not provide an actual immutable moral system, regardless of some religions' repeated claims to do so. Once we agree with the baseline that all morality is relative/subjective, then we can move forward.

I am much more comfortable with that conclusion than I am knowing I am holding a belief that has no tangible foundation.

Mal---that is in a nutshell what it means to have faith---believing in something where no "tangible" evidence necessarily exists. As a person of faith, I have felt the presence of God....nonbelievers will say that is just all in my head....but no it's not in my head but in my heart and it can be felt if one opens their heart to Him.

what it means to have faith---believing in something where no "tangible" evidence necessarily exists.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Hi Lisa,

As a person of faith, I have felt the presence of God....nonbelievers will say that is just all in my head....but no it's not in my head but in my heart and it can be felt if one opens their heart to Him.

I support you in holding those beliefs! I will defend you from those who would persecute you for your beliefs, especially your religious beliefs!

The friction between believers and non-believers happens when people of differing beliefs are not willing to make room for those who are different. Non-believers do this to believers, and believers to it to non-believers. As you know, I am pretty outspoken on the topic of compromise and finding ways to get along with people who are different. I know I have provided plenty of "friction" in the world myself, nonetheless I never stop trying to find common ground.

BTW- I don't care much for the term non-believer. Whether or not my beliefs are consistent with yours or others, I still believe something... I also "believe" that there is nothing I can do, including believing, that will change what is true.

I don't believe I saw you comment on my article on belief... Perhaps you will read it some time.

PS- If you didn't see my request for you to comment on #3.2... I hope you will.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

True. In such cases, I choose to believe that I have no answer and may never have an answer.

Mal---"non-believer" that's just my shorthand again (remember "obamacare"....ouch, no, don't remind me). "Non-believer" means when I use it "person who does not believe in God"---is atheist a fair substitute? Also, many who profess not to believe in God but do embrace the Golden Rule I would just like to point out the bliblical reference to the Golden Rule:

The golden rule has its roots in a wide range of world cultures, and is a standard which different cultures use to resolve conflicts.[3] It was present in the philosophies of ancient India, Greece, Judea, and China. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways, but its most common English phrasing is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the Biblical book of Matthew: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:39, Luke 6:31) The "Do unto others" wording first appeared in English in a Catholic catechism around 1567, but certainly in the reprint of 1583.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

I don't think it matters whether we believe in God or not. I believe that creation is a classroom playground investigation land and every person good or evil is part of the teaching staff.

Lisa,

I actually take no offence at the use of the term non-believer, I just don't like to use it myself... due to my beliefs about belief (per my article). Call me an atheist, or an agnostic, or even a non-believer, it won't offend me. Because of what I said in #10.17, I think many would describe me as an agnostic. I call myself a quiet atheist and a fervent secularist (I think secularism was part of the discussion that started this whole thing). On secularism... I think some religious people feel that secularism and atheism are synonymous, I do not. My definition of secularism is (short version) "separation of church and state." I think many "non-believers", including myself, feel that if religion permeates our public institutions there will be no place left for us to live according to our beliefs. We feel religious influence on our government would lead legislation of belief.

I am aware that Jesus was a proponent of the Golden Rule. That and many other ideas he professed demonstrate his great wisdom.

We feel religious influence on our government would lead legislation of belief.

Mal---one of the reasons why America exists today is so that that does not happen. Try Iran for that one. PS--but remember that separation of church and state does not mean the suppression of relgious expression.....that would be counter to our Bill of Rights:

the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,

separation of church and state does not mean the suppression of relgious expression

As I said in #10.16

I will defend you from those who would persecute you for your beliefs, especially your religious beliefs!

To that I add... fight against "suppression of relgious expression."

I will defend you from those who would persecute you for your beliefs, especially your religious beliefs!

Mal---and you're a defender I like having on my side....as rarely as that realistically may be able to happen.

How does one subscribe to an "absolute" standard of right and wrong without a "good book" of some flavor?

I don't know that one can . . . but I don't see why that "good book" needs to arrive under a claim of having been metaphysically received.

Also, I'm of the opinion that all "absolutes" are more illusory, and more transient, than we tend to believe. "Objective" truth, "objective" morality, are simply those "truths" and "morals" that appeal to the widest cross-section of subjective interests.

How does one subscribe to an "absolute" standard of right and wrong, and at the same time refuse to subscribe to anything that would provide him with that original guideline?

As a "subscriber" of pantheism (as a cosmological presupposition) and Buddhism (as a mode of practice), I'm not sure I could answer that . . . and to be fair, I think everyone operates according to a cosmological presupposition and a mode of practice, so I doubt we could say that anyone is fully without religion. They might, however, be utterly without theos (or belief therein), which I think is the key distinction between the theist and all others; they might even be without belief in metaphysic, which might be the only distinction between the religious and the irreligious (though, as I've said, schools of thought like objectivism, social constructivism, existentialism, and secular humanism could be described as atheistic religions, which is to say that there are few, if any, truly irreligious individuals).

Even someone who denied being religious probably subscribes, at least, to a moral code built on a foundation of observation and utility.

If you are a non-believer, but are a true law-abiding citizen, you are adhering to a set of laws - laws that were derived from text that was created thousands of years ago, with amendment here and there.

Perhaps. But the decision to abide by that law, or not to, and the decisions as to what laws one obeys and which one does not (as when, say, someone stops at stop signs and refrains from killing or stealing, but smokes a joint now and again), are still based on some internal moral mechanism (or so it would seem). Isn't it just as likely that obedience to law and obedience to dogma emerge from the same evolutionary mechanism for moral behavior?

So in that case, are you willing to leave it in the hands of elected officials, who, for better or worse, create their own minicipality's "good book"?

I would actually suggest that elected officials should have as little power as possible to regulate behavior; families, communities, and/or faith organizations can do more, in my opinion, to affect voluntary moral compliance than can law, which should limit itself to restricting on rational bases, with an eye (or heck, both eyes) toward civic utility.

IMHO, religion has been part of the world for such a long time, that most people have an ingrained sense of right and wrong. So, although we are not all "of faith", we might be nurtured into it, whether we would like to admit it or not.

Perhaps. OR perhaps religion has been part of the process by which we attempted to codify moral preoccupations that arose--organically, evolutionarily--from intuitive moral understandings.

How does one subscribe to an "absolute" standard of right and wrong without a "good book" of some flavor?

I don't know that one can . . .

Of course one can. Why not?

Of course one can. Why not?

Because an "absolute" standard (or the closest thing we can reach thereto) is always going to require some enumeration of rights and responsibilities to which organisms tacitly or actively agree. A social contract, if you will. Now, I don't think that contract needs to be derived of some metaphysical principle (though, as a pantheistic Buddhist, I DO have recourse to metaphysic in contemplating moral questions); even a constitution or philosophical text could be considered a "good book" for these purposes.

always going to require some enumeration of rights and responsibilities to which organisms tacitly or actively agree. A social contract,

I agree, but, Does it have to be a book? What about cultures and societies which never developed a written language?

I was using the notion of "book" pretty broadly, believer, the same way I, as a critic, suggest that one can treat music, cinema, even athletic competition or sex as "text" to be analyzed for content, evaluated, placed in context, deconstructed, etc.

So the "good book" can also arise from oral tradition, indigenous ritual, etc. Hope that clarifies my point a bit.

yes, thanks.

I don't believe ethics necessarily must stem from religion, and when you mentioned "book" I misunderstood the implications.

But I do agree, that social structure, once it gets to a certain size, demands some type of an agreed upon moral code. This 'code" then becomes the basis for a legal code to delineate rights and responsibilities. as you say.

Actually, I used the word "book", with religion in mind.

But I'd be happy to go with the broader definition.

No problem.

Actually, I still had religion in mind; I just didn't necessarily have written text in mind. Further, I don't think that the concept of religion relies on metaphysic; it only relies on connecting moral imperatives to how and why we came to be. That is to say, if one can derive morality from evolutionary theory, that derivation is religious.

Indeed, that's not all that far from Buddhism/pantheism/Taoism, wherein morality is derived from the fact that we share with all phenomena and all organisms this condition we call "Being."

Take God completely out of the picture and place all of us in a room to dish out what's morally right and wrong among ourselves. When we can't agree... guess who's law we'll end up following; One who is the strongest and can enforce his/her will on the rest. That should'n't be how what's right & wrong is determined.

Darwinism, Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest, certainly contradicts with morality of justice and fairness. Nature isn't fair. So why is it "wrong" for someone stronger to take from someone weaker, their belongings...or even their life?

You should ask the chimps. Their social structures often punish stealing and reward fairness, and I'm not aware that they practice any form of theism, mono-, poly-, or pan-.

If morality, definition of what's right and wrong, is determined by a concept of "God"... and that "God" represents certain moral codes, then it won't change with the times... moral codes remain stable. The majority wouldn't be able to change it.

So remind me: if a concept of "God" renders all morality under God immutable, then why did Martin Luther form the Lutheran Church, and for what reason was the Church of England created? Is a Mormon's idea of morality absolutely identical to that of the Catholic?

If morality, definition of what's right and wrong, is left to be determined by the "strong" (majority) then it may change with the times... we are in serious trouble. It'll change when the majority changes it.

Pretty much. Those who pretend that absolute morality exists are simply shoving their heads in the sand. All morality is subjective and relative. Some moral players are simply honest about that fact.

If morality is left to pure Darwinism, the weak is left to die, genetically cleansing the race and leaving only the strong.

Not at all. Elephant groups actively care for their elderly. You need to learn more about this "Darwinism" you speak of before, well, speaking further of it.

But we don't allow that because everyone, weak & strong, are special to God and fall under Him... not under each other.

I don't think I need to point out the countless times in Western history when this alleged religious principle was thrown under the bus for the sake of religiopolitical expediency.

Hence forth why pushing "God" completely out of our society can be detrimental. "God" becomes the moral compass, immovable rod, unchanging star, that generations can look at for their moral code.

You should really read up on Western history, and look at just how much Christianity has changed (and fragmented) since its inception.

Take God completely out of the picture and place all of us in a room to dish out what's morally right and wrong among ourselves. When we can't agree... guess who's law we'll end up following; One who is the strongest and can enforce his/her will on the rest. That should'n't be how what's right & wrong is determined.

The same result would generally apply to a room full of Christians and Muslims, or Catholics and Protestants during the time of active Christian infighting in Europe.

Jack if what you are implying is true.. that natural selection and evolution instilled certain behaviors within us which we define as moral values, and that we don't really need to think about it.. heck we dont even have a choice apparently since it's genetically ingrained in us to behave properly...

Well then... what the heck is wrong with the condition of the world today? What happened Jack?

And how should we try to fix it, make it better?

Isn't that the subject of this article?

You should really read up on Western history, and look at just how much Christianity has changed (and fragmented) since its inception.

If you don't agree with my comment then tell me your thoughts. Pls don't presume I don't know western history and Christian history or doctrine, and suggest you know more. This was a sly insult Jack. Pls don't do that. Rather explain your thoughts why my comment isn't accurate. That I respect.

Besides I see you analyzing everyone else's comment but did not clearly provide your own thoughts, opinion, philosphy on the matter.

What do you believe regarding this subject Jack?

Jack if what you are implying is true.. that natural selection and evolution instilled certain behaviors within us which we define as moral values, and that we don't really need to think about it.. heck we dont even have a choice apparently since it's genetically ingrained in us to behave properly...

It's not as simply as a direct "morality has a biological basis, so all morality is genetic" causality. If you want to read my "own thoughts, opinion, philosophy", I wrote an article a while ago that expands upon my view of morality. It's somewhat lengthy, so I'd rather not copy-paste it here.

In short, basic morals (don't kill your kin, don't steal from your kin, protect your kin, etc.) are biologically ingrained. Anything much more complex is the result of these basic morals and complex social interaction.

Pls don't presume I don't know western history and Christian history or doctrine, and suggest you know more.

Fair enough. I simply think that anyone familiar with Western history would know that God has never generally been anything remotely resembling a moral "immovable rod, unchanging star," as I noted before with my questions regarding Lutherans, Anglicans, and Mormons--which you apparently saw fit to ignore.

Well then... what the heck is wrong with the condition of the world today? What happened Jack?

As js notes above, it's not necessarily an actual breakdown in modern moral fiber. We're simply getting worse (or less vigilant) in hiding our immoralities. Women were once relegated to the kitchen, and kids were once treated essentially as personal accessories. Crime rates have generally gone down. Can we really argue that morality has truly slipped over the years? Or, do you we simply take fundamental moral progress for granted, and now focus on the more superficial immoralities of reality TV and text messaging?

Religious history usually comes with a great amount of immorality. In the times when men ruled in religion they often times were the most corrupt and often committed acts that were totally against what they preached. It was license to do anything one pleased as one could blame God or say the act was committed in the name of God. These were unruly times where a man could beat his wife and children commit adultery and do any number of violations without fear of retribution. Anyone not believing the way the individual believed was subject to inexcusable acts simply because of a belief system, which was a convenient way to "do as you please".

It has only been 30 years or so since we've begun to try to curb the abuse against women children and minorities. Up until this surge began if we didn't like someone we could treat him or her horrifically and discount their validity. Once it was decided that every human had equal value the wars began due to a number of people feeling they are superior humans and must have someone to degrade and lord over. For example we have pushed for human rights and there has been reluctance on the part of many to accept this. So for blacks and other minorities such as women the handicapped and the GLBT community there are many not wanting to grant full equality as they feel this is not correct. Although I find it odd to believe one person is better than another is I can see how this might happen. When a group cannot rule and must share often times there is a ruckus.

Animals don't struggle with right or wrong. It's unique human condition.

Are you certain of that? Why?

Which person or group have the right to tell another person or group, what's right or wrong? Isn't it the person or group with the biggest guns?

Not necessarily. It's just as often the person or group who can create a great enough consensus that sheer numbers can make up for the size of guns. One points out that Nazi Germany enforced a vision of "right" through force, while failing to acknowledge that the rest of the world ultimately created enough consensus to oppose that force . . . with yet more force (and to repair the damage of opposing forces through years of peaceful reconstruction).

A thug may feel and justify he is entitled to steal something, but he may not...because law enforcement got bigger guns. If the thug has the biggest guns then anyone else and he can't be stopped, he may steal things not entitled to him. Isn't that what dictators all about, a thug with the biggest guns? But who is to say this thug is "wrong"?

Who is to say Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Kim Jong Il are wrong?

Whomever wishes may say so; whomever can build greatest consensus may posit that moral position as transcendent. What's more, others may continue to hold that moral position as being in error.

Darwinism, Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest, certainly contradicts with morality of justice and fairness.

Why? Mightn't justice and fairness be seen as evolutionary adaptations for certain classes of social organism? After all, they clearly have conferred greater survivability on our particular species.

Nature isn't fair.

But "fairness" might be a reasonable, survival-oriented response to "Nature" (so far as it exists as an independent, Platonic entity, which I don't think is very far). The "nature" of any given organism or population of organisms is often a response--and not infrequently an antagonistic response--to "Nature" in the macrocosm.

So why is it "wrong" for someone stronger to take from someone weaker, their belongings...or even their life?

It's not . . . to the stronger organism doing the taking. To the weaker organism suffering the loss, it is. And if enough weaker organisms agree with this outrage and band together to oppose the stronger force, and/or if enough stronger organisms can be convinced of the injustice of "might makes right" to create a reasonable police or military force, then we have a mechanism--a social contract--by which principles can be put into action. This can happen at many different levels: governmental, familial, metaphysical, communitarian. Smaller units often adhere to a greater number of moral directives than are provided by the over-arching contractual unit that binds these smaller units together.

If morality, definition of what's right and wrong, is left to be determined by the "strong" (majority) then it may change with the times... we are in serious trouble. It'll change when the majority changes it.

That seems to be the case even with religious influence.

If morality, definition of what's right and wrong, is determined by a concept of "God"... and that "God" represents certain moral codes, then it won't change with the times... moral codes remain stable.

Not at all. In the absence of a shred of empirical evidence for deity, our understanding of the divine relies on descriptions thereof by mere humans. Therefore, value systems that claim to be transcendent are ultimately as contingent and anthropogenic as value systems based on either might or consensus.

If morality is left to pure Darwinism, the weak is left to die, genetically cleansing the race and leaving only the strong.

Why? If, say, intelligence, creativity, or compassion have served us well as survival adaptations (and I submit that they have), "fitness" might actually include certain forms of "weakness"; and if, indeed, certain forms of weakness have proven either useful or neutral to our collective survivability, it lands in our best interest, as organisms, to protect the weak.

Hence forth why pushing "God" completely out of our society can be detrimental. "God" becomes the moral compass, immovable rod, unchanging star, that generations can look at for their moral code.

But if one believes, as I do, that "[G/g]od" is simply a code word anthropomorphizing the essentially amoral unifying forces of the universe (and there's no evidence to the contrary), then this "immovable rod" is just another anthropogenic tool for organization, no more verifiably transcendent than the U.S. Constitution, the Communist Manifesto, or 120 Days of Sodom.

. . . natural selection and evolution instilled certain behaviors within us which we define as moral values, and that we don't really need to think about it . . .heck we dont even have a choice apparently since it's genetically ingrained in us to behave properly...

I'm not sure why you'd infer that we don't need to think about it. I'd say that thinking about it is precisely what we've adapted to do. The appearance of choice, whether or not it's illusory (some schools of Buddhism, as well as Spinoza's naturalistic pantheism, would suggest that free will is, in fact, a deceptive term, that the universe functions more deterministically), obligates us to exercise apparent agency.

In other words, if morality is reflexive, it's because we reflexively contemplate morality, and the fruits of that contemplation serve as our moral guideposts.

Well then... what the heck is wrong with the condition of the world today?

While I'm not entirely convinced that the "now" is the snakepit we seem to be making it out to be, I'd say that anti-intellectualism and a natural struggle with the complexities of democracy and pluralism are the source of contemporary malaise. After all, the kind of pluralism humanity now experiences, and the rigors of democratic process, are rather "new," in terms of the totality of human history and evolution.

Jack and Lyamhound, you both broadened my horizon on this issue, gave me food for thought. Both of your explanations were thought out clearly. It also makes sense. Thank you. Morality is such a elusive subject, can discuss it endlessly I think.

It's so elusive and subjective, personally I like to keep it simple; "Creator says its right or wrong..." Hah. Call me a simpleton. ;p

Human history though, among all ethnic groups, evolved with a religion of some sort. How much of that religion influenced certain values is hard to say. I wish there was one ethnic group that didn't have some type of a religion that instilled some type of moral value. Then we can clearly compare what effect religion has on forming certain views and values and what type of views and values are formed w/out it.

Such is life though. As far as morality & religion, how one influences the other and how one can exist without the other... we're all in a test tube still.

Thank you both of you. Was great comments.

It's so elusive and subjective, personally I like to keep it simple; "Creator says its right or wrong..." Hah. Call me a simpleton.

Hey, whatever works for you. I'm disinclined to criticize the source of anyone's morality, provided that his morality doesn't interfere with my own libert[y/ies].

Actually, on the surface, Buddhism is just as simple: Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path (feel free to look those up), all of which boils down to the Mystic Law (expressed among us Nichiren followers as Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo), which itself boils down to cause & effect--that behaviors have consequences, either latent or manifest, and we ought be mindful of those consequences.

Human history though, among all ethnic groups, evolved with a religion of some sort. How much of that religion influenced certain values is hard to say. I wish there was one ethnic group that didn't have some type of a religion that instilled some type of moral value. Then we can clearly compare what effect religion has on forming certain views and values and what type of views and values are formed w/out it.

It's been suggested that religion itself was a universal, evolutionary adaptation on the part of our species.

Jack and Lyamhound, you both broadened my horizon on this issue, gave me food for thought. Both of your explanations were thought out clearly. It also makes sense. Thank you. Morality is such a elusive subject, can discuss it endlessly I think.

No problem. Morality is indeed one of those philosophical debates that can easily find no end.

It's so elusive and subjective, personally I like to keep it simple; "Creator says its right or wrong..." Hah. Call me a simpleton. ;p

KISS isn't a bad philosophy to live by, and I don't have much of a problem with the bare idea of basing morality on a Creator. I usually prefer to take issue with particular moral declarations. :-P

Human history though, among all ethnic groups, evolved with a religion of some sort. How much of that religion influenced certain values is hard to say. I wish there was one ethnic group that didn't have some type of a religion that instilled some type of moral value. Then we can clearly compare what effect religion has on forming certain views and values and what type of views and values are formed w/out it.

I'm not claiming that religion hasn't influenced moral thought for a huge swath of humanity (or that it wasn't a sensible stage in the progression of human thought). However, so has war, and people generally agree that war didn't create morality. ;-) I agree that it indeed would be nice if there was a "control set", if you will, for analyzing religion's influence on morality. Alas, this lack of controlled experiments is a pitfall one always runs into when analyzing societal problems.

IMO morality began to die with the advent of the birth control pill .
This was an advance that solved one problem [threat of overpopulation] but
introduced other problems [ a blurring of social roles and the social
structure that was built on these roles ] . It was far easier to have a code
of conduct when the entire society agreed on these roles and the associated rules of behavior .

One big problem with this analysis: contraceptive concoctions, abortifacients, and surgical abortion were fairly common practice long before the invention of the birth control pill.

Further, the birth control pill didn't solve overpopulation. Not by a long shot.

With the advent of "the pill" the rate of social change accelerated sharply
and the threat of "being left out" became the motivating force for most people

Ummm... how did the advent of birth control pill increase the desperation with which people feared "being left out"?

One big problem with this analysis: contraceptive concoctions, abortifacients, and surgical abortion were fairly common practice long before the invention of the birth control pill.

Fair enough Jack ; clarification is required .

Although there were prior contraceptive and abortifacient methods , none received the enormous popular reception that the pill did . IMO , the sea change that brought about was due to the change in women's self perception . For the 1st time in history women were able to be proactive in their ability to not give birth . They were thus able to devote themselves more fully to becoming "sexual beings" on an equal footing with men . This was an enormous change in self perception .

Further, the birth control pill didn't solve overpopulation. Not by a long shot.

I am not attempting to address global concerns here . I'm assuming this
article is mostly about the U.S. where the birth rate is below the replacement rate [with the exception of Hispanic citizens] .

how did the advent of birth control pill increase the desperation with which people feared "being left out"?

It had to do with the acceleration of the rate of social change .
Sorry if I'm not being clear on this . Perhaps more elaboration is required .

Perrie ,

Jack is one of the few viners I know intelligent enough to
formulate difficult questions . His points allowed me to better
focus my thoughts . Tomorrow after you've slept on this , perhaps
you'll have some questions too .

Although there were prior contraceptive and abortifacient methods , none received the enormous popular reception that the pill did . IMO , the sea change that brought about was due to the change in women's self perception . For the 1st time in history women were able to be proactive in their ability to not give birth . They were thus able to devote themselves more fully to becoming "sexual beings" on an equal footing with men . This was an enormous change in self perception .

Hmmm, perhaps. But then I have to pose the chicken vs. egg question: was the birth control pill's popularity a catalyst for women's sexual liberalization, or was the women's general social liberalization (Rosie the Riveter, women's suffrage, etc.) the catalyst for gaining the social ability to make the birth control pill popular?

"The pill" was first approved for use in the US in 1960, so if we're purely going by comparative timelines of social movements, I'm leaning towards "liberalization led to Pill adoption," and not the other way around.

I am not attempting to address global concerns here . I'm assuming this
article is mostly about the U.S. where the birth rate is below the replacement rate

Was the US ever really in danger of being overpopulated, though? Our current population stands at around 300 million, and we have several times more arable land than China, which still manages to sustain 1.3 billion people.

It had to do with the acceleration of the rate of social change .
Sorry if I'm not being clear on this . Perhaps more elaboration is required .

Yeah, I think you'll have give a longer explanation. :-P

I've always attributed accelerated social change to advances in telecommunications and a progressive rise in in average standard of living.

A little Wiki-info

The words "birth control" entered the English language in 1914 with the American reformer Margaret Sanger. In 1914 she launched The Woman Rebel, an eight page monthly newsletter promoting contraception, with the slogan "No Gods and No Masters", and coining this term).

I've always attributed accelerated social change to advances in telecommunications and a progressive rise in in average standard of living.

Seems like that all really began with the industrial revolution...

Jack ,

But then I have to pose the chicken vs. egg question:

An excellent question ; however , I am unconcerned about the answer .
I am not implying that "the pill" was the cause , only the catalyst .
It was a catalyst because it took a theoretical construct
[women are equal to men] and made it more practical
[I feel equal to a man because I can avoid the consequences of casual sex . ] .

Was the US ever really in danger of being overpopulated, though?

Possibly , but either way that does not detract from my central argument .
I think the intention of the inventor was to prevent overpopulation .

I've always attributed accelerated social change to advances in telecommunications and a progressive rise in in average standard of living.

As Jack and Mal both point out there have been numerous technological changes that have affected our economic structure and sped things up . All of these are I have little doubt , part of the picture .

But I maintain that widespread adoption of the pill had its own unique effects . A lot of what we call morality has its basis in the family structure and the raising of children . Women's identity was mostly fixed in that role and in related career paths [teacher nurse etc.] . In any case there was almost no direct competition between the genders . But all that changed with the "liberation" of women that was catalysed by the pill . Now women feel free to pursue almost any career path .
There wouldn't have been a Danica Patrick back then . Now she is free to compete directly with men . Thus there is a general deemphasis on the child rearing function of women and a changed emphasis to competition in the workplace etc.
It is this large increase in the general level of competition that leads to a lack of standards of behavior IMO . I hope I have made myself clearer this time .

From the historical info about the pill I will have to change my
statement about the intention of the inventor . Apparently it was
motivated by women's liberation influences from the start . The pill is still the catalyst of this huge social change .

Prior to the women's liberation movement a woman was expected to leave the past behind and reshape herself in the image her husband demanded. The husband instructed the woman in every act. He'd admonish her in public if she made a social mistake and berate her if she "forgot" even the pettiest demand. Many women became depressed, as it is very difficult to have nothing of yourself and feel like a vessel filled with rules and expectations, none of which came from the self. Women kept secrets, dreamed and imagined yet hid this well as it was forbidden.

Along came the 60's and men decided that women could go out in the workforce and help with the financial needs of the man. The money the woman brought in often paid the lion's share of the debts while the man could support his hobbies. It was indeed a strange time. The woman could not compete with her husband and he was still completely in control.

It has taken years to gradually turn things around. Women stopped buying into "Because I'm the Man" after discovering they were not given choices expected to support be the domestic and completely in service to another human being. The battle for equal rights has a huge impact on a society as many are battling for and just as many are battling against being as one.

It was a catalyst because it took a theoretical construct
[women are equal to men] and made it more practical
[I feel equal to a man because I can avoid the consequences of casual sex . ] .

That is only one manner in which gender equality could be reached. I would think that actual civil rights, like the right to vote, would count at least as much.

Possibly , but either way that does not detract from my central argument .
I think the intention of the inventor was to prevent overpopulation .

The intention of the inventor is irrelevant to whether or not the birth control pill solved overpopulation, in much the same way the intention of the inventor is irrelevant to whether or not lasers helped us listen to the Jackson Five on the go.

But I maintain that widespread adoption of the pill had its own unique effects . A lot of what we call morality has its basis in the family structure and the raising of children . Women's identity was mostly fixed in that role and in related career paths [teacher nurse etc.] . In any case there was almost no direct competition between the genders . But all that changed with the "liberation" of women that was catalysed by the pill . Now women feel free to pursue almost any career path .

Faulty causality. Whether or not a woman is actually a mother has little bearing on whether or not she should choose "nurse" (versus, for example, "engineer") as her career path (especially since engineers typically have much more predictable working hours). It is merely social perception which decides such things, not actual conception control.

Pre-birth-control-pill America was not a vast plain of teenage pregnancies, and World War 2 certainly demonstrated that women didn't need the birth control pill to do what was traditionally man's work. As such, I don't see any support for your argument that the birth control pill was some sort of primary catalyst of women's liberation.

There wouldn't have been a Danica Patrick back then . Now she is free to compete directly with men . Thus there is a general deemphasis on the child rearing function of women and a changed emphasis to competition in the workplace etc.

All you've said here is that women's liberation indeed happened. You've demonstrated nothing about the significance of the birth control pill.

The pill is still the catalyst of this huge social change .

Frankly, I've yet to see you rationally support this statement.

I would think that actual civil rights, like the right to vote, would count at least as much.

I have not said or implied that "sexual equality" is the only factor ;
Only that it was the last event in the chain to bring about actual equal rights .

The intention of the inventor is irrelevant to whether or not the birth control pill solved overpopulation

Where did I say or imply that "the birth control pill solved overpopulation" ? And this has nothing to do with my central thesis about the social effects of the pill .

Faulty causality.

I'm not talking about causality . I'm talking about identity .
Women's identity was very much wrapped up in conception and
child rearing . Now it's not as much . They could not pursue many
varied career paths till they freed themselves from that former identity .

Do you disagree that women didn't "feel free to pursue almost any career path" in the past ?

All you've said here is that women's liberation indeed happened. You've demonstrated nothing about the significance of the birth control pill.

OK , try this . Women are NOT equal . That is because they are not the
same as men . Take away their birth control and their right to abortion
and they revert to their original IDENTITY as the child bearing gender .
The pill was the 1st true freedom from that identity .

The pill [or something like it] was necessary to allow that new
identity to emerge .

I have not said or implied that "sexual equality" is the only factor ;
Only that it was the last event in the chain to bring about actual equal rights .

Where did I say or imply that "the birth control pill solved overpopulation" ?

Uhhh... right here:

IMO morality began to die with the advent of the birth control pill .
This was an advance that solved one problem [threat of overpopulation]

Do you disagree that women didn't "feel free to pursue almost any career path" in the past ?

No, I agree with that. However, I don't see support for your emphasis of the birth control pill as "a sea change" or "the catalyst."

OK , try this . Women are NOT equal . That is because they are not the
same as men . Take away their birth control and their right to abortion
and they revert to their original IDENTITY as the child bearing gender .
The pill was the 1st true freedom from that identity .

Again, the ability to control childrearing without requiring abstinence was not pioneered by the birth control pill. Even assuming that the Pill does provide utter freedom from this "identity" as the child-bearing gender (and I'd argue that it doesn't, since men have yet to gain the ability to give birth), it was hardly the first thing to allow such freedom.

nonStitiousZealot has a point though. Birth control pill may not be "the" catalyst, but it's accurate to say it was a significant catalyst. Can we ever point to one event for significant progressive social change? Probably not. Sociocultural evolution usually require series of small to significant events. It did level the playing field. Perception of inequality, that women shouldn't have multiple partners due to risk of pregnancy while men can, got thrown out the window. Call it sexual equality. In the realm of sexual gratification, game changed; Men and Women became equal. Did this significantly contribute awareness for and leading to gender equality?

I think so.

Thank you Jonny ,

I was hoping someone else would get my point .

Jack ,

I can't say that I have proved my point . It is not the kind of event
that lends itself to proof . But I have said my piece . And you have not
disproved my thesis . However you have resorted to nit-picking .
That is disappointing .

Birth control pill may not be "the" catalyst, but it's accurate to say it was a significant catalyst.

I can see how that would be true. But, it'd be nice if someone could point me to direct evidence supporting this claim.

Can we ever point to one event for significant progressive social change?

Not at all, thus one of my disagreements with nSZ's thesis.

It did level the playing field. Perception of inequality, that women shouldn't have multiple partners due to risk of pregnancy while men can, got thrown out the window. Call it sexual equality. In the realm of sexual gratification, game changed; Men and Women became equal. Did this significantly contribute awareness for and leading to gender equality?

I don't think it did. Heck, men and women still aren't truly on a level playing field when it comes to sexual freedom (or other facets of social perception). Popular sexual expectations still differ markedly for men and women, and in the end, it is culture (like those expectations) which dictates social equality.

And you have not
disproved my thesis .

Depends on which thesis you're talking about. The goalposts shifted a couple of times over the course of our discussion.

However you have resorted to nit-picking .
That is disappointing .

On nitpicking. :-P

Heck, men and women still aren't truly on a level playing field when it comes to sexual freedom (or other facets of social perception). Popular sexual expectations still differ markedly for men and women, and in the end, it is culture (like those expectations) which dictates social equality.

Agreed. Guess we are still socially evolving ;).

Jack ,

men and women still aren't truly on a level playing field when it comes to sexual freedom (or other facets of social perception). Popular sexual expectations still differ markedly for men and women

I'm going to take a guess here about your age . You are not old enough to
have been an adult during the beginnings of the "sexual revolution" .
My motive for making the statements I did was based on my experience of
this era as an adult and the rapid changes I observed . Sexual mores went
through a rapid change but then biology reasserted itself .
[I expect you're going to blame this on social mores but I don't agree .] .

Depends on which thesis you're talking about. The goalposts shifted a couple of times over the course of our discussion.

I've had only 1 main thesis the whole time . It hasn't shifted once .
And no it wasn't that the pill defeated the population explosion .
Try rereading what I said about that .

I'm going to take a guess here about your age . You are not old enough to
have been an adult during the beginnings of the "sexual revolution" .

That sexual revolution began before the introduction of the Pill, so that makes you over the age of 75 (2010 - 1960 + 25)?

Sexual mores went
through a rapid change but then biology reasserted itself .

And I don't see the Pill as fundamentally equalizing male and female biology. Women are still the only ones who can give birth.

I've had only 1 main thesis the whole time . It hasn't shifted once .

Well, for starters, "a catalyst" is fundamentally different from "the catalyst." :-P

for starters, "a catalyst" is fundamentally different from "the catalyst."

Still nit-picking Jack . I have repeatedly used "the catalyst" and
that is my stance . If you look back you can see it was another party
that said "a catalyst" .

If that's all you got , you ain't got much .

Still nit-picking Jack .

Pardon me for trying to have a discussion in clear terms. I'll consider working on rhetorical hopscotch in the future.

I have repeatedly used "the catalyst" and
that is my stance . If you look back you can see it was another party
that said "a catalyst" .

Alright, now you've really got to clarify.

You're claiming that your point has solely been about the Pill being "the catalyst," yet Jonny wrote "nonStitiousZealot has a point though. Birth control pill may not be "the" catalyst, but it's accurate to say it was a significant catalyst. Can we ever point to one event for significant progressive social change? Probably not.", which you responded to by thanking Jonny for being someone who "gets [your] point."

So, for final clarification on just this one brutally simple facet of your argument: do you mean "the catalyst" (which contradicts Jonny's point), or do you mean "a catalyst" (which contradicts, well, your current point)?

If you can't even clarify this elementary issue, one can hardly be expected to have a meaningful discussion about something as complex as women's liberation.

If that's all you got , you ain't got much .

Merely in the comment you just responded to, I had about three times as much. :-P

You also had a different point earlier, specifically: "The pill was the 1st true freedom from that identity ." Curiously, this came after my note that the Pill was hardly the first form of control that women got over their childrearing schedule.

Now, even if I do accept that your statement at face value, just for the sake of indulging you, that the Pill was indeed primarily responsible for leveling the sexual playing field, your initial thesis was "morality began to die with the advent of the birth control pill."

If you'd like to explain the causal link between sexual equality and moral decay, feel free.

So, for final clarification on just this one brutally simple facet of your argument: do you mean "the catalyst" (which contradicts Jonny's point), or do you mean "a catalyst" (which contradicts, well, your current point)?

As I just said , I meant "the catalyst" which is what I said .
If you call that a complete contradiction to what Jonny said take it up with him .

"The pill was the 1st true freedom from that identity ." Curiously, this came after my note that the Pill was hardly the first form of control that women got over their childrearing schedule.

You quoted me correctly . Let me stress the emphasis . "The pill was the 1st TRUE freedom from that identity ."
By that I mean that it gave women the feeling of being in control of their
reproduction which they didn't have with abortion for example since that involved outside agents . I am trying to make a point about women's identity which involves how they feel about the process they are using .

If you'd like to explain the causal link between sexual equality and moral decay, feel free.

First I need to know how the rest of what I said in this comment has been
received . If there is no consensus about that there is no point in adding to it .

As I just said , I meant "the catalyst" which is what I said .
If you call that a complete contradiction to what Jonny said take it up with him .

Ah, so Jonny getting your point was bulls---. Noted.

In that case, I'll reiterate my earlier point that the Pill still didn't level the playing field, and you've yet to show me how legal equality (like suffrage or employment anti-discrimination) were less important than the Pill for women's liberation.

I'll note that even after the passing of gender-based anti-discrimination laws, women are still not considered sexual equals, since they're still often allowed maternity leave.

"The pill was the 1st TRUE freedom from that identity ."
By that I mean that it gave women the feeling of being in control of their
reproduction which they didn't have with abortion for example since that involved outside agents .

So you completely ignored my disagreements with that at the end of #15.16 and in the middle of #15.19. Okay, to reiterate: a measure of freedom in childrearing scheduling that's simply more convenient than abortion doesn't counter the fact that there's still only on gender tasked with childbirth.

First I need to know how the rest of what I said in this comment has been
received . If there is no consensus about that there is no point in adding to it .

Ah, so no explanation yet.

to reiterate: a measure of freedom in childrearing scheduling that's simply more convenient than abortion doesn't counter the fact that there's still only on gender tasked with childbirth.

Nevertheless , the rate of childbirth has gone down dramatically since the advent
of this new BC technology . In that respect there is "less than one gender"
actually having children . [The proportion of women who are mothers is less
and the average family size is much less .]
That convenience was a big deal back then . It changed the way women FELT about themselves . OK , I implied that it was all women . I oversimplified . I should have said "a large number of women" . My apologies for doing that . I was reaching for an idea and did not get all the details precisely right the 1st time through .

I still think my basic idea is correct . The women who were most interested in sexual equality were directly affected by having an option they did not previously have . I know that when I was going for a second college degree in the 1970's the effect it had on coeds was profound . In any case the noise about the equality of women increased dramatically in that period . And the identity of girls growing up then wasn't so
singularly focussed on marriage and childbirth . It allowed for many more possibilities .

nonStitiousZealot you post is really good and I agree with you on the point of women's liberation and choices. Until the movement women and that was me had one identity and that was of her husband. If she were single she'd be up for scrutiny if she were not married by a certain age. In those times most women were married before their 21st birthday. I made it to 20 and had my first child when I was really old...23. That was simply how things worked. I was married to a doctor and introduced as Dr R's wife not "js" as I was just the chic who was in service to the guy. I was also arm-candy although they didn't call it that in those days. I was so shallow that I saw the governor and his wife in the elevator and she was wearing flat shoes in public and I was appalled for her fashion mistake. This is embarrassing to reveal but it does give you a sampling of how broad and enlightened I was. I had no thoughts of my own once married and it was pretty much forbidden. When Women began resisting this condition we were doing happy dances and we could study what we wanted explore laugh play and be curious without someone's thumb being pressed down upon us. No more closet education dreams and expectations we were free to come out and be who we truly were. We threw away or burned our bras snubbed Tupperware parties and began to live. Our men had a hard time with this but found they liked a freer woman for the most part. There were advantages for them.

Thanks for sharing your experiences js .
It helps to get a personal perspective on those turbulent times .

The birth control pill of the 60's was so awful that it really was birth control as it completely depressed the libido. That pill was far too strong and for me a curse. I felt bloated and cranky and truly wacko while taking it. I think many women had very sensitive systems and this pill was pretty terrible. The idea was wonderful but the side affects were truly concerning. I along with many other women developed "pigment" spots on my body. It is a great relief that improvements have been made.

In the late 60's I interviewed for a job and was asked about my sexual activities was I on birth control and did I plan to have more children. I'm sure this will give you a hint that men weren't quite ready to give up their role of controlling women.

Perrie, you have named it.

But that is timeless. Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Nero....absolute power leads to absolute corruption.

Every generation from the beginning of time has equally tolerated and learned from their rebellious 'free thinking youth'.

Absolute corruption, greed, and profits, by the so-called adults, however have sometimes altered our progression of human understanding.

What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them? - Plato

We've been complaining about the younger generations lack of morality for probably as long as there has ever been a younger generation to complain about.. the ancient Greeks and Egyptians apparently were also complaining about how morality was in decline.. I think that every generation has its own way of expressing its interpretation of morality that is in essence little changed from that of their parents.. otherwise if morality was really in such decline for so long we would have long ago reverted to complete barbarism.

Yes, definitely a defunked Catholic.. but not against the concept of religion itself but the concept that religion has to be rigid and that it needs enforcers, sanctioned interpreters, dogma.. a menu of religion is just fine, it's when a fundamentalist decrees that their way is the only way that we have problems

In all fairness , that quote from Plato was shortly before the fall of the Greek civilization .

Here is another question to ponder though; Almost all of us commenting here are U.S. citizens. We grew up in this culture. Although Christianity may be on a decline in the U.S. today, (especially among our young men & women), the religion was quite a moral influence in our country since it's founding.

We grew up within communities with moral values that was significantly influence by judeo/christian doctrine. May not be anymore, but it was, I'd say, even up to 20 years ago. Christian conservatives had a powerful voice in this country when it came to issues of morality. Those of you who are not 30 yrs or older may not relate heh. Here is where our real ages start to come into play.

"Moral Decay". The word itself suggests that at one point our moral standards were higher; People within our community, individually and generally as a whole, held a higher moral standard. But now, individually and generally as a whole, hold less moral standard.

Could there be a correlation between moral decay and decline of judeo/christianity in our country?

When certain values are taught from youth by our communities, whether that be via family members, television, teachers etc... those values shape us. We tend to impart those same or similar values to our children and so forth.

When certain values are not taught or different sets of values are taught by our communities, we tend to impart those same or similar values to our children and so forth.

Is there a correlation I wonder? Personally I think so.

Perrie:

People are free to pick and choose what they like about any faith. I kind of keep a Chinese menu of religion in my life.

I wouldn't think to criticize this approach in and of itself. The problem, from, say, the mainstream Protestant perspective is that Christ has no use for half-measures, for cafeteria faith. From an epistemic perspective, the problem is that, in addition to the "rules" and philosophical posits within any given religion (from which one can borrow, cateteria style, if one doesn't assume that the metaphysical assertions or historical narratives of the religion are true), there are also arguably falsifiable assertions of truth. That is to say, either there is a god or there isn't; either Christ is the messiah, or he is not; either his crucifixion atoned for our sins, or it didn't.

Since I don't believe in an anthropomorphic deity, in the resurrection, or in the historical veracity of the Bible per se, I have no objection to your "borrowing" elements of the Bible that suit you; after all, I believe that Christ was likely a bodhisattva, given that he obviously had enough charisma and influence to have a whole movement built around his purported philosophy (the catch being that, according to the doctrines of Mahayana Buddhism, we're ALL bodhisattvas, so his particular distinction becomes a little less monumental). But I'm not sure most Christians would agree.

Also, insofar as being religious implies belief that something is true, it is immune to the notion of "choice." One may certainly "choose" the doctrines to which one is obedient; one has less choice--pretty close to none, though we could quibble about tangential or supporting choices regarding modes of observation or epistemology--regarding what one believes to be true.

Jonny-1740441:

Although Christianity may be on a decline in the U.S. today, (especially among our young men & women), the religion was quite a moral influence in our country since it's founding. We grew up within communities with moral values that was significantly influence by judeo/christian doctrine.

Maybe. Then again, my tacitly Catholic parents were pro-choice, pro-gay-rights (even so far as allowing a gay couple to babysit first their eldest son--me--and later both of their boys), pro-contraception, unconcerned by premarital sex, etc. Conversely, the moral principles about which they were most rabid--responsibility to others, politeness, hard work, etc.--were/are in no way specific to Christianity.

It's always interesting to debate the matter for me, because there are moral precepts within Christianity worth keeping (civility, sacrifice, tolerance, pluralism) that are expressed (some might say better expressed) in other faith systems, while some specific to Christianity (proscriptions against homosexuality or premarital sex, admonishments against belief in other deities, insistence on the sabbath) seem to have little-to-no specific value when the matter at hand is being good to/responsible for one another.

Those of you who are not 30 yrs or older may not relate heh.

I'm 38.

"Moral Decay". The word itself suggests that at one point our moral standards were higher; People within our community, individually and generally as a whole, held a higher moral standard. But now, individually and generally as a whole, hold less moral standard.

That's the premise, yes. Whether the premise itself is correct is a matter worth investigating. Are we less moral, or has the focus of our moral concern shifted?

Could there be a correlation between moral decay and decline of judeo/christianity in our country?

One could as easily point to the way that consumer goods like cars, computers, and phones, and even others like cell phones and their various descendents, went from being luxuries to necessities, amenities that current or prospective employers assume that you will have (depending on the industry wherein your talents and interests lie, of course; I can guarantee that no one without nigh constant email access has gotten much theater work in the last decade), and/or to the necessity of dual income households in such a system. Could car culture and suburbanization have lead to social isolation, thus eroding civic values?

Perrie and I also converse above about the degree to which anti-intellectualism has left the population unable to contemplate moral philosophy in such a way as to be mindful of the consequences of action. I think it's impossible to overstate the importance of this development. As a side note, I do agree that religion is a useful tool for introducing moral standards to those too blunt or simple to absorb them philosphically or intellectually (or even for those who are so inclined; after all, I'm practicing Buddhist and, philosophically/cosmologically, a pantheist), but that Christianity isn't unique in its capacity to do so.

When certain values are taught from youth by our communities, whether that be via family members, television, teachers etc... those values shape us. We tend to impart those same or similar values to our children and so forth.

So the question is, what are family members imparting in the (posited) absence of Judeo-Christian values? Have they replaced it with no religion at all? Following that to its reasonable extension, might the problem be less one of decreasing religiosity and more one of decreasing moral-philosophical interest?

Perrie and I also converse above about the degree to which anti-intellectualism has left the population unable to contemplate moral philosophy in such a way as to be mindful of the consequences of action. I think it's impossible to overstate the importance of this development.

If we were to compare current generation with previous generations, isn't current generation more educated and more inclined towards intellectualism? With the www. and information era, nothing is hidden. People can research, reason, evaluate, judge & conclude for themselves.

Which poses another question; Is there a correlation between positive ethical individual morality which governs one's social behavior, with intellectualism? Hm... What I mean; Is highly educated scientific mind (intellectualism) produce higher ethical moral behavior?

I don't really equate intellectualism with science. Science is obviously a pursuit requiring intellect, and it's the best system we've encountered for observing, recording, and "explaining" (so far as it's possible) natural phenomenon, but I certainly don't imagine that science is better than religion, poetry, intuition, or philosophy at prividing a basis for moral reasoning.

So . . .

If we were to compare current generation with previous generations, isn't current generation more educated and more inclined towards intellectualism?

Not at all. Among some minority and immigrant populations, "intellectualism" seems to be equated with whiteness; harping from the right about "elites" and coastal intellectuals in their "ivory towers" shows that intellectualism is not much more respected by rural whites.

What's more, education rarely includes exposure to moral philosophy, comparative theology, or even various theories on the evolution of moral principles, theories regarding the survival utility of morality, creativity, compassion, etc.

As a Buddhist, I'm actually expected to be able to tackle these questions intellectually as well as apprehending them emotionally and spiritually through chanting. But I was studying those matters before I was a Buddhist; I didn't need the Catholicism of my youth to guide my interest in moral matters during my years as an atheist, agnostic, and/or budding pantheist in order to reach any of a number of conclusions about the utility of morality.

People can research, reason, evaluate, judge & conclude for themselves.

They can, but do they? To me, the latest escapades of my favorite band or film director are of a kind with moral philosophy, which is in turn just as interesting to me as new information about, say, the romans frenetiques in Romantic-era France. I get the feeling, though, that people are not exposed to philosophy as a matter of course.

Is there a correlation between positive ethical individual morality which governs one's social behavior, with intellectualism?

I would say that there is if the intellect is steered toward the pondering of ethics and the nature and consequence of behavior for a social organism. That is to say, what is required is not deity or even metaphysical principle (though I happen to believe in the latter, if not the former), but focused contemplation of morality as a necessary subject for study.

Philosophy was not required in the past because its concerns were presumed to be covered in church. Now that we are a pluralistic society of varying religious backgrounds (including atheistic and agnostic perspectives), instruction in philosophy--which, in my opinion, should ALWAYS have been required, as it presents the only human pursuit that truly distinguishes us a species--becomes urgent.

...would say that there is if the intellect is steered toward the pondering of ethics and the nature and consequence of behavior for a social organism. That is to say, what is required is not deity or even metaphysical principle (though I happen to believe in the latter, if not the former), but focused contemplation of morality as a necessary subject for study.

...Now that we are a pluralistic society of varying religious backgrounds (including atheistic and agnostic perspectives), instruction in philosophy--which, in my opinion, should ALWAYS have been required, as it presents the only human pursuit that truly distinguishes us a species--becomes urgent.

Ah focused intellectualism into ethics and nature, connections between sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, moral philosphy...to hammer out certain core values and ethics.

Hm... Yes. I absolutely agree. I myself believe in God. My family came from strong Buddahist background (although I am not a buddahist).

I whole heartedly agree, we shouldn't leave ethics and moral values solely to religion to hammer out and teach.

I whole heartedly agree, we shouldn't leave ethics and moral values solely to religion to hammer out and teach.

Nor, however, should we allow a blunt instrument like government to legislate it, or society to enforce at the expense of moral self-determination.

greed is the path to immorality. greed has destryoed this country and some of the biggest stains on American history were caused by greed.

Greed has also made this country . The original robber barons of industry
were indeed greedy and ruthless . But their industries allowed this nation
to develop at a rapid pace and thus become a world power .

Greed has also made this country . The original robber barons of industry
were indeed greedy and ruthless . But their industries allowed this nation
to develop at a rapid pace and thus become a world power .

Perhaps. But couldn't that rapid development have been a "catalyst"--rather like the pill, per your earlier assertion--for the various moral "failings" that arise from affluence and its accompanying complacency?

couldn't that rapid development have been a "catalyst" ....
for the various moral "failings" that arise from affluence

Although I'm inclined to say no my mind is far from made up .
I am willing to read arguments supporting your thesis .
BTW I am more concerned with "ruthlessness" than I am with greed .
The monopolistic practices of Rockefeller and Carnegie are textbook
examples of "ruthless and vicious and even murderous" practices .

Although I'm inclined to say no my mind is far from made up .
I am willing to read arguments supporting your thesis .

They're going to be pretty similar to the ones you made regarding the pill: Prior to the excesses of industrial capitalism coming to fruition, specific rules governed society with regards to one's duty to one's fellow man, the purpose of the "corporation" (so far as such a thing existed at all) within the community, etc., just as the promise that sex would lead to womb-rats once consigned men and women to very specific roles. Affluence, of course, led to different understandings of how one related to the fruits of his or her labor, and not all of those understandings were erroneous: if those who worked could be allowed access to the fruits of their labor, they would likely reinvest some portion of those fruits into the community.

You could, of course, take this further (and I would), and suggest that "happy" organisms are more likely to participate in soceity, and that therefore whatever modes of pleasure appear to please the organism, provided they don't directly harm person or property of another organism.

Of course, this whole line of reasoning can go terribly wrong, and lead to the ruthlessness and murderousness of the robber barons in the first instance, moral anarchy in the second. But the lines between reasonable application of these principles and unreasonable application is subjectively defined.

Not specifically, but that could apply. Perhaps just reasonable wages for the work done; after all, if captains of industry simply paid fair wages, there'd have been no need for unions.

Also, there's the shifting of understanding as to whom a corporation serves. It used to be a given that a farm, store, or factory in a town served the town, the county, the state; now, it's just as much a piece of received wisdom that a corporation serves its shareholders, who have no stake in the community where the workers live, the environmental impact of the product and mode of manufacture, etc.

The point being that just as birth control affected the role of the individual within the nuclear family (the most stifling unit of the family, but that's another discussion), market capitalism affected the role of the individual in the community.

OK , if you're going to approach this topic from the left , I'll do the
yang to your yin and approach this from the right side .

The one simple principle of economics is that market forces determine
the price of goods and labor . To establish fixed prices has deleterious
effects on the market and results in less people having their needs and
wants being satisfied . In the case of the capitalist who offers substandard wages , he also gets substandard workers since the able workers quit to find better paying jobs .
The only reason unions were necessary is because the companies were colluding with each other to fix labor prices . That is nothing but a distortion of market forces and not "real" capitalism .

I'm not really approaching it from the left; I'm just noting that the relationship between acquisitiveness and economic exploitation (and of the fact that corporations function as de facto governments, ultimately creating the necessity for the two income household) is as clear and linear as that between women being able to have sex without fear of pregnancy and the supposed breakdown of the "traditional" family.

As a professional performer/writer/teacher, I've not objection to capitalism per se, but I have to wonder:

That is nothing but a distortion of market forces and not "real" capitalism .

What, in your mind, are the internal mechanisms that keep "real" capitalism from functioning the way you describe (the way that, let's face it, most corporations actually function)?

I'm not really approaching it from the left

You may not think so but you are .
If I understand your background correctly , you're in the entertainment
business . That automatically makes you lean to the left .
If you've never been involved in industry , you don't know what's involved
with setting up a business and running it w/o having it fail .

What, in your mind, are the internal mechanisms that keep "real" capitalism from functioning the way you describe .

There are well established government regulations that are designed to
protect us from the excesses of industry . They are far from perfect .
Collusion does happen . And periods of extreme deregulation occur
which removes those protections .

The one simple principle of economics is that market forces determine
the price of goods and labor .

In an ideal free market, that is correct.

To establish fixed prices has deleterious
effects on the market and results in less people having their needs and
wants being satisfied .

Not always. Deregulation of the California energy grid led to rolling blackouts (which, in the summer, have the nasty tendency to occasionally kill people) and that whole Enron fiasco.

In the case of the capitalist who offers substandard wages , he also gets substandard workers since the able workers quit to find better paying jobs .

Yes, but the "standard" is, in part, determined by employers, since their collective choices dictate the range of wages available to workers of certain skill levels.

The only reason unions were necessary is because the companies were colluding with each other to fix labor prices . That is nothing but a distortion of market forces and not "real" capitalism .

Unfettered capitalism, even with regulations that prevent collusion, would never have led to the prohibition of child labor or the institution of the minimum wage. I work in finance, so I'm a fan of capitalism, but the conceptual ideal of capitalism has very real limitations.

If I understand your background correctly , you're in the entertainment
business .

Yes, theater. We in this industry work more hours for less money than just about anyone. What's more, a good portion of my theater work is self-produced, which means that my meager income is generally put at risk in service of the art.

I'm also a self-employed personal trainer, a partner in my wife's therapeutic massage business (she does all the massage, but I help with her banking), and a receptionist/volunteer coordinator for a non-profit. Therefore, this statement . . .

If you've never been involved in industry , you don't know what's involved
with setting up a business and running it w/o having it fail .

. . . isn't really true.

That automatically makes you lean to the left .

Socially, perhaps (given that homosexuals, for instance, are disproportionately represented in our industry). Economically, only on the basis of our being broke and seeking ways of being less broke.

Jack ,

Deregulation of the California energy grid led to rolling blackouts
and that whole Enron fiasco

There were illegalities in both of these situations . The messes that occurred had little to do with deregulation and a lot to do with unlawful actions .

the conceptual ideal of capitalism has very real limitations.

I think we are in agreement on this point .

LH ,

As a group , people in the entertainment industry are more left leaning
than perhaps any other occupation . I could speculate on why that is but
what would be the point ? The few right leaning examples mostly revealed
their political preferences after they already left the industry .
Reagan and Heston come to mind .

The few right leaning examples mostly revealed
their political preferences after they already left the industry .
Reagan and Heston come to mind .

I'm trying to decide whether it's telling or not that your examples couldn't even act. :)

Though, to be fair, I did rather enjoy both The Omega Man and Planet of the Apes.

Who would be your choices for those who can really act ?

There were illegalities in both of these situations . The messes that occurred had little to do with deregulation and a lot to do with unlawful actions .

I don't see how you can draw a stark dividing line between deregulation and illegality, as laws are simply one form of regulation, no? ;-)

Further, the reaction to the rolling blackouts scenario wasn't simply punishing Enron (which, of course, did happen), but the shutdown of deregulation and the return of the California energy grid to full regulation. That's worked out pretty well so far.

I don't see how you can draw a stark dividing line between deregulation and illegality, as laws are simply one form of regulation, no?

Where is that logic you're so famous for ?
Obviously my point is , after the removal of the regulations there were
still other laws in place and these were the ones that were violated .

So what , are you just playing dumb here ?

Obviously my point is , after the removal of the regulations there were
still other laws in place and these were the ones that were violated .

Beyond the fact that regulation vs. deregulation is itself a matter of legal mandate, price spikes and supply shortages in the California energy grid cropped up before Enron actually committed any illegal acts, nor was Enron the only player that traded electricity in a manner that caused price spikes. It was simply the most successful (and the most greedy).

If you'd like a similar example of market failure without illegal actions, you can look at the collapse of the credit derivatives market that led to our current economic crisis. Nothing technically illegal happened there, but the market collapsed like a flan in a cupboard. Now, replace "credit derivatives contracts" with something that's a modern life necessity (like electricity), and you'd have a situation similar to the California situation I've been trying to explain to you.

Yes , I agree that price fixing is not in itself , deleterious to the markets but it depends on how far off the market the price is fixed . It is a quantitative factor rather than a qualitative one .

If you'd like a similar example of market failure without illegal actions

Are you saying that the failure of the supply shortages in the California energy grid were not due to illegal actions ?
Of course there are failures in the economy that have nothing to do
with legal violations , but if I recall the reported details correctly
there were laws being broken . Certainly Enron was playing with a circle
of shell corporations that passed off obligations [?] on each other
without the buck ever stopping anywhere .

Yes , I agree that price fixing is not in itself , deleterious to the markets but it depends on how far off the market the price is fixed . It is a quantitative factor rather than a qualitative one .

I don't think I was even talking about price fixing, since that's not what happened in CA, nor was it what happened in the credit derivatives markets, as there was no active collusion.

"Are you just playing dumb here?" ;-)

Of course there are failures in the economy that have nothing to do
with legal violations

Thank you for agreeing with my point. Distortions are, themselves, part of "real" capitalism (as you call it). As such, free market determination of prices isn't this cure-all you implied in #20.2, nor is regulation absolutely worse for satisfying needs than market determination, which was your other implication.

I am far from an expert in the field of economics . I wasn't so much
expressing my opinions as just taking a debating point with LH .
I said as much in #20.2 :

OK , if you're going to approach this topic from the left , I'll do the
yang to your yin and approach this from the right side .

I would suggest that it is not that difficult to understand why CH made the change. When the various movements went from positive goals, ie. equality for all, to negative goals, ie. destroying the concept of individual rights in favor of group rights, and from rewarding merit to providing an "even playing field" at the expense of merit, many others made the move as well. Essentially as "Liberal" thought changed, those who were Liberal became Conservative without much change in outlook.

Kudos. Well said. Especially 4th point. ;)

I think many do not wish to tear down Christianity but to update some of the views that harm other humans. I am one who embraces all and have no problems with acceptance. I also have no problem with having a strong moral code. I believe the only problem organized religion might have that puts people off is some feel they do not need to follow the laws of man as they follow the laws of God. This only gives license to reject others and judge them as abominable or less than worthy. When a group of people demand respect yet cannot extend this to others I find this a problem.

Don't you think, a true religious person doesn't judge others, but leaves Justus up to the courts? Isn't that what makes us moral? Like living the golden rule?

inmycircle..I thought I addressed that in my post.

I believe if as a society we gave up feeling we have to trump someone in order to feel our own worth we'd be champions. I see the only problems we have are those we create for ourselves. If I want a fulfilling wonderful life I must offer the same to all others. It certainly doesn't matter what others believe I believe in me and with this I am confident that making moral choices is not a problem at all. We cannot blame others for our actions and not corrupt ourselves in the meantime.

Socrates 1,

Sorry for not reading it close enough the first time. I guess I was gettin your drift, though,

Interesting dialogue and thoughtful points as a result of the article. The environment is almost too rich and any comments I might make would inevitably require further explanation. That being said..just some food for thought.

1. The first question is, of course, what is morality, and how do we determine if we are, as a society, less or more moral?

2. There were certainly several down-sides to the "Woman's" Movement. One could suggest that it had negative, as well as positive, consequences economically, socially, and ethically.

3. As already noted, the fragmentation of American Society, including the move away from many "Christian" Principles has also had negative consequences.

4. As each generation is nurtured in a less "moral" environment the process is accelerated as the basis for the morality is less and less an integral part of each successive generation's inner being.

5. The issue of free choice and individual morality has been emphasized without the corresponding background to make those choices.

6. Agreeing that all morality is relative results in......."moral relativity".

7. Religion can provide a decent moral framework without the need to do the "heavy lifting".

Probably enough for now...)

Probably enough for the moment.

3. I suggest that the decline of morality is linked with the decline in religion. Perhaps not in the way some would suggest. It is the defense of the ethical and moral code that counts. Thus, even in the case of those who consider themselves religious, the belief that one should not judge anothers actions results in the general decline of the entire system.

So, to cast this in blunter terms, ethical behavior comes from personal judgmentalism? I can see that general point, but I would think that many Christians disagree with that view of ethics.

4. I have often argued that Christianity is well suited to the task before us. Basically providing an ethical and moral framework while, at the same time, containing the rights of the individual to his/her own beliefs. The apparent desire on the part of many to tear down Christianity while providing no viable substitute is, in my view, very short-sighted.

This is the idealized version of Christianity, not Christianity in all of its widely popular forms through the centuries. Christianity, as a conceptual ideal practiced by some, can protect individual rights to independent belief. However, it's been used to tear down individual rights many, many times through its history.

Further, the simple fact that Christianity provides some sort of "ethical and moral framework" says nothing about its suitability or benefit to society. The specific morals practiced by Christendom (not simply advertised by Christendom) are what really count.

3. As already noted, the fragmentation of American Society, including the move away from many "Christian" Principles has also had negative consequences.

Which "Christian" principles in particular?

6. Agreeing that all morality is relative results in......."moral relativity".

Pretending that any morality is absolute is simply lying to yourself. I feel alternately amused and perplexed at some religious advocates' knee-jerk antipathy to "moral relativism," when their own moral systems are utterly subjective, self-selected, and have changed over time.

7. Religion can provide a decent moral framework without the need to do the "heavy lifting".

"Decent" is subjective, and if I'm reading your statement correctly, I agree that religion can simply serve a ready-made moral system for those who'd rather not do the "heavy lifting" themselves. However, the quality of this ready-made morality varies greatly from religion to religion (and sect to sect), and from observer to observer.

3. ethical behavior comes from personal judgmentalism?

Before I respond, I would ask for clarification.

4.

This is the idealized version of Christianity, not Christianity in all of its widely popular forms through the centuries.

Certainly, morality and ethics are an attempt join the ideal with the reality.

Christianity, as a conceptual ideal practiced by some, can protect individual rights to independent belief.

Glad we agree on that point, as that is my point.

However, it's been used to tear down individual rights many, many times through its history.

Certainly, I might agree with this statement, but, so what? Do you reject the use of the combustable engine because it has been used in time of war?

Further, the simple fact that Christianity provides some sort of "ethical and moral framework" says nothing about its suitability or benefit to society.

Agreed, but I suggest that the framework it provides has shown to be suitable and benefitial, if you are in favor of individual rights, etc. Other systems may, in theory, provide the support, Christianity has, in reality, provided such support to a much larger degree than any other system in history of any size and longevity. It is that very strength that, as we are discussing here, is its weakness.

The specific morals practiced by Christendom (not simply advertised by Christendom) are what really count.

Yes, and no. I agree that practice is important, but I would suggest that the framework is of extreme importance as a guide to determine practice.

Which "Christian" principles in particular?

The idea that there are even principles with which one should be concerned. The idea that there might be some "universal" truths, and that sometimes the journey is as important as the destination. As mentioned in another comment, the rise of cheating, lying, and the acceptance of like behavior.

Pretending that any morality is absolute is simply lying to yourself. I feel alternately amused and perplexed at some religious advocates' knee-jerk antipathy to "moral relativism," when their own moral systems are utterly subjective, self-selected, and have changed over time.

Of course, this belief indicates exactly what I suggest. Certainly there are many who agree with you with the expected results.

"Decent" is subjective, and if I'm reading your statement correctly, I agree that religion can simply serve a ready-made moral system for those who'd rather not do the "heavy lifting" themselves. However, the quality of this ready-made morality varies greatly from religion to religion (and sect to sect), and from observer to observer.

And we agree....As we also agree that the quality varies, which I welcome coming from you, I would suggest that Christian Principles can provide that "ready-made" moral system, including tolerance, while at the same time having the necessary force, to protect it.

Before I respond, I would ask for clarification.

I'm referring specifically to this statement of yours:

the belief that one should not judge anothers actions results in the general decline of the entire system.

Certainly, morality and ethics are an attempt join the ideal with the reality.

Hmmm, perhaps, but that's not my perspective. Morality and ethics are simply vectors of social control.

Certainly, I might agree with this statement, but, so what? Do you reject the use of the combustable engine because it has been used in time of war?

Hardly, but I ask simply for cognizance that Christianity is merely a tool, like the combustion engine, not innately good or bad.

Other systems may, in theory, provide the support, Christianity has, in reality, provided such support to a much larger degree than any other system in history of any size and longevity. It is that very strength that, as we are discussing here, is its weakness.

Christianity has also supported bigotry, hatred, discrimination, and warfare to quite a sizable degree, as well. By body count, it's not the greatest supporter of such (since early conflicts were limited by, well, the total number of people in the war zone), but by social influence, it very well may be.

Yes, and no. I agree that practice is important, but I would suggest that the framework is of extreme importance as a guide to determine practice.

Yes, but even in your statement, the framework is indirectly important only because it influences practice.

The idea that there are even principles with which one should be concerned. The idea that there might be some "universal" truths, and that sometimes the journey is as important as the destination.

While those may be part of some (maybe even "most") Christian thought, they aren't unique to Christianity in any way. In this respect, I'd say that Buddhism is a superior model to Christianity. its incidence rate of religious warfare is far lower, and embodies the abstract ideas you noted above quite well.

As mentioned in another comment, the rise of cheating, lying, and the acceptance of like behavior.

Ah, but these activities were "accepted" long before any modern decline of Christianity.

I would suggest that Christian Principles can provide that "ready-made" moral system, including tolerance, while at the same time having the necessary force, to protect it.

Again, that may be true of the Christian ideal, but it does not accurately describe the reality of Christendom. Further, it really depends on which Christian principles we choose to emphasize, even if we're only referring to basics like the Ten Commandments.

ethical behavior comes from personal judgmentalism?

Still, not attempting to be obtuse, but what? Ethical behavior is in the eye of the beholder?

Hmmm, perhaps, but that's not my perspective. Morality and ethics are simply vectors of social control.

Perhaps similarly I would say yes, but not completely. Should m and e be simply vectors of social control, a shared system of ethics would be even more important, not less. The universality, in my opinion, of certain truths represents each individuals self-interest. In short, a still born article titled "What is Evil" examined this question. I began from the base line whereby if one was alone on earth would there be such a thing as evil? It seemed that the concept of evil needed at least two. From that perspective all morality and ethics certainly involves the relationship between two or more people.

Hardly, but I ask simply for cognizance that Christianity is merely a tool, like the combustion engine, not innately good or bad.

I would agree, and have suggested, that Christianity can serve as a tool in the here and now, without one necessarily being required to accept the more religious aspects of the faith. To a certain extent I might argue its inate goodness or badness. Many of the "better" qualities of Western Civilization have been built of Christian Principles. Many of the "so-called" bad effects of Christianity have been combated by a further investigation of the faith itself and, in so doing, have resulted in the "better" qualities having an even stronger base by way of rooting them in Christian Principles.

Christianity has also supported bigotry, hatred, discrimination, and warfare to quite a sizable degree, as well. By body count, it's not the greatest supporter of such (since early conflicts were limited by, well, the total number of people in the war zone), but by social influence, it very well may be.

I would suggest that, regardless of the truthfulness of your statement, that, by body count, and social influence it has, by far, been the largest contributor towards a greater awareness and support of Universal Human Rights. I return to the "engine" analogy.

Yes, but even in your statement, the framework is indirectly important only because it influences practice.

Yes, but a framework that does not support certain values I regard as "good" would be even worse.

While those may be part of some (maybe even "most") Christian thought, they aren't unique to Christianity in any way. In this respect, I'd say that Buddhism is a superior model to Christianity. its incidence rate of religious warfare is far lower, and embodies the abstract ideas you noted above quite well.

I would disagree with your suggestion that Buddhism is a superior model to Christianity on several counts, but the primary one is pragmatic.

Ah, but these activities were "accepted" long before any modern decline of Christianity.

Here again, I think further clarification might be required for me to make any meaningful response.

Again, that may be true of the Christian ideal, but it does not accurately describe the reality of Christendom. Further, it really depends on which Christian principles we choose to emphasize, even if we're only referring to basics like the Ten Commandments.

Considering we seem to agree that the Christian "ideal" has something to offer, your concern seem to be primarily in the area of practice. Here again I would suggest that, in actual practice, and in providing an acceptable frame-work Christianity has done a relatively good job. Please don't refer to such things as the Inquistion, etc.etc. I do not deny those things and therefore Christian failures are not really, to my mind, proof that Christianity has not, in the end, moved Man forward, if one supports the concept of Universal Human Rights. More basic than the Ten Commandments is the principle of individual responsiblity and the freedom to choose, which is an adjunct of that responsibility. That particular discussion, the difference between the concept of individual responsibility while at the same time providing an ethical and moral code which one regards as the "right" one is one in which I have been involved for quite some time as the result of an article I wrote quite some time ago, and you may have already read...frankly without reviewing the comments I can't remember. The point being that should you disagree, or not understand, my perspective on that particular point I might not be too inclined to discuss it at this time.

Ethical behavior is in the eye of the beholder?

Of course, including which existing moral system the beholder chooses to follow.

Should m and e be simply vectors of social control, a shared system of ethics would be even more important, not less.

Indeed, and I agree that morality can only come from social interaction. I noted in past comments that it is indeed, solely the product of social interaction.

I began from the base line whereby if one was alone on earth would there be such a thing as evil? It seemed that the concept of evil needed at least two.

To me, evil is a purely subjective matter, so even if you're the only person on the planet, you can still deem certain things "evil." However, such a label in such a world is just as worthless as any other opinion.

Many of the "better" qualities of Western Civilization have been built of Christian Principles.

Eh, I'm skeptical of that claim. The Golden Rule, for example, didn't originate with Christianity, nor did Christianity pragmatically enforce the Golden Rule too well during its history.

You can point to Christianity forming the basis for the individualism of, for example, Martin Luther. But, it also forms the foundation of Catholicism, one of the most rigid and hierarchal social control systems in modern society.

Many of the "so-called" bad effects of Christianity have been combated by a further investigation of the faith itself and, in so doing, have resulted in the "better" qualities having an even stronger base by way of rooting them in Christian Principles.

This stronger foundation for "better" qualities that comes from questioning "bad" effects is possessed by only a portion of Christendom, though. There are still plenty of Christians out there who celebrate what some consider the "bad" side of Christianity.

Thank you for your reasoned comments and responses. Basically, much of the conflict that occurs when I become engaged in discussions such as this is when we begin the "war of examples". As previously stated, my position goes something like this. I agree that examples can be found where order was supported over liberty. I agree that not all Christians nor all divisions of Christianity have completely clean records. To me, though regrettable, they still do not negate the fact that support can be found within Christianity in text and action. In many cases, even when the opposition is "Christian", Christians can be found, using Christian Principles, leading the charge for tolerance and individual liberties. I do not deny that, for example, Buddhism may provide similar support, but I would suggest that. for whatever reason, it has not provided a secure base nor an adequete defense mechanism to protect not only its own followers, but those of other faiths as well. This may be true of Christianity as well, we can only wait and see.

I agree that examples can be found where order was supported over liberty. I agree that not all Christians nor all divisions of Christianity have completely clean records. To me, though regrettable, they still do not negate the fact that support can be found within Christianity in text and action. In many cases, even when the opposition is "Christian", Christians can be found, using Christian Principles, leading the charge for tolerance and individual liberties.

The same arguments can be in support of the opposite claim, that Christianity has been a force of oppression. It simply depends on which examples we choose to deem exceptions and which we call the norm.

I do not deny that, for example, Buddhism may provide similar support, but I would suggest that. for whatever reason, it has not provided a secure base nor an adequete defense mechanism to protect not only its own followers, but those of other faiths as well. This may be true of Christianity as well, we can only wait and see.

I'd say that while Christendom is adequately protected itself for centuries, it hasn't done much towards protecting those of other faiths, going so far as to have major Christian factions actively oppressing dissenters, both within and outside of Christendom. In other words, I don't see why "we can only wait and see."

The same arguments can be in support of the opposite claim, that Christianity has been a force of oppression. It simply depends on which examples we choose to deem exceptions and which we call the norm.

Yes, one could make that argument, and. in fact, many have. I just do not find it very convincing.

I'd say that while Christendom is adequately protected itself for centuries, it hasn't done much towards protecting those of other faiths, going so far as to have major Christian factions actively oppressing dissenters, both within and outside of Christendom. In other words, I don't see why "we can only wait and see."

Again, I would have to disagree. I would suggest that it is in those countries which are either primarily Christian, or have a Christian background, that you find the most religious freedom.

The "wait and see" part was meant to suggest that it is the tolerance and respect for individual rights, as well as the failure of many to credit it with those qualities, which may well result in further erosion of support for Christianity.

Well said Dr. L .

Dr. L

I wrote my comment regarding the possible negative effects of the Woman's Movement and than read your post. There is much truth in what you said.

It's a little deeper than that, but again, one would have to agree on the goal prior to entering into a discussion.

Those are very large questions, Perrie, and I'm no genius. It just seems to be the life cycle of cultures. As much as I want to believe we will be different, didn't they all think that?

Yeah, I don't care much for that part, either. (: